Dkt. 305 Joint Notice of Filing Report of Independent Reviewer

Case 1:10-cv-00249-CAP Document 305 Filed 09/19/18 Page 1 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.
) 1:10-CV-249-CAP
THE STATE OF GEORGIA, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)
NOTICE OF JOINT FILING OF THE REPORT

OF THE INDEPENDENT REVIEWER
On October 29, 2010, the Court adopted the parties’ proposed Settlement
Agreement and retained jurisdiction to enforce it. See Order, ECF No. 115. On
May 27, 2016, the Court entered the parties’ proposed Extension Agreement and
similarly retained jurisdiction to enforce it. See Order, ECF No. 259.
Both documents contain provisions requiring an Independent Reviewer to
issue reports on the State’s compliance efforts. See Settlement Agreement ¶ VI.B;
Extension Agreement ¶ 42.
On September 18, 2018, the Independent Reviewer, Elizabeth Jones,
submitted to the parties her semi-annual report, along with several reports from her
consultants. On behalf of the Independent Reviewer, the parties hereby file the
Independent Reviewer’s report and the reports of her consultants.
As stated in the parties’ Joint Status Report, submitted on June 29, 2018,
after the parties have an opportunity to review the Independent Reviewer’s report
and additional information from the State, the parties will be able to inform the
Court about the State’s compliance with the agreements before the end of the year.
Respectfully submitted, this 19th day of September, 2018.
2
FOR PLAINTIFF:
BYUNG J. PAK JOHN M. GORE

United States Attorney Acting Assistant Attorney General
Northern District of Georgia Civil Rights Division
/s/ Aileen Bell Hughes ALBERTO RUISANCHEZ

AILEEN BELL HUGHES Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Georgia Bar No. 375505 Civil Rights Division
Assistant United States Attorney
Northern District of Georgia STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM
600 United States Courthouse Chief, Special Litigation Section
75 Ted Turner Drive, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303 MARY R. BOHAN
Telephone: (404) 581-6000 Deputy Chief, Special Litigation Section
Fax: (404) 581-4667
Email: aileen.bell.hughes@usdoj.gov /s/ Richard J. Farano (with express permission)
RICHARD J. FARANO
District of Columbia Bar No. 424225
Senior Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Special Litigation Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 307-3116
Fax: (202) 514-0212
Email: richard.farano@usdoj.gov
3
FOR DEFENDANTS:
CHRISTOPHER M. CARR /s/ Jaime Theriot (with express permission)

Attorney General JAIME THERIOT
Georgia Bar No. 112505 Special Assistant Attorney General
Georgia Bar No. 497652
ANNETTE M. COWART
Deputy Attorney General Troutman Sanders LLP
Georgia Bar No. 191199 600 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 3000
Atlanta, GA 30308
SHALEN S. NELSON Telephone: (404) 885-3534
Senior Assistant Attorney General Fax: (404) 962-6748
Georgia Bar No. 636575 Email: jaime.theriot@troutman.com
State Law Department JOSH BELINFANTE

40 Capitol Square, SW Special Assistant Attorney General
Atlanta, GA 30334 Georgia Bar No. 047399
Telephone: (404) 656-3357
Fax: (404) 463-1062 Robbins Ross Alloy Belinfante
Littlefield LLC
999 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (678) 701-9381
Fax: (404) 601-6733
Email: josh.belinfante@robbinsfirm.com
4
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that the documents to which this certificate is attached have been
prepared with one of the font and point selections approved by the Court in Local
Rule 5.1B for documents prepared by computer.
This 19th day of September, 2018.
/s/ Aileen Bell Hughes

AILEEN BELL HUGHES
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 19, 2018, a copy of the foregoing
document, Notice of Joint Filing of the Report of the Independent Reviewer, along
with the underlying reports, were filed electronically with the Clerk of Court and
served on all parties of record by operation of the Court’s CM/ECF system.
/s/ Aileen Bell Hughes

AILEEN BELL HUGHES
Georgia Bar No. 375505
Case 1:10-cv-00249-CAP Document 305-1 Filed 09/19/18 Page 1 of 47
REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT REVIEWER
In The Matter Of
United States v. Georgia
Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-249-CAP
September 19, 2018

Introductory Comments
The Settlement Agreement (SA) and Extension Agreement (EA) require the Independent
Reviewer to file reports each year with the Court. This is the second of two reports for the State
of Georgia’s Fiscal Year 2018 (FY 2018); it covers the period from March 1, 2018 until June 30,
2018.
The State, through its Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities
(DBHDD), its Department of Community Health (DCH) and its Department of Community
Affairs (DCA), has continued to demonstrate good faith in working to meet its obligations under
these agreements. The Governor and the Georgia General Assembly have made a substantial
investment of resources and, as a result, the community-based services and supports available to
individuals with a developmental disability (DD) or a serious and persistent mental illness
(SPMI) have been expanded and sustained throughout the nearly eight years since entry of the
Settlement Agreement.
The availability of these resources has helped to lessen the reliance on institutional settings for
many, although not all, of the individuals included under the terms of the agreements.
The shift from a system built on institutionalization to one that is built on the goal of community
integration is at the core of the Settlement Agreement. In plain language, the Settlement
Agreement states:
Accordingly, throughout this document, the Parties intend that the principle of self-
determination is honored and that the goals of community integration, appropriate
planning and services to support individuals at risk of institutionalization are achieved.
(SA, I., K.)
There are a number of strengths evident in Georgia’s community-based system, including the
commitment of its leadership to the systemic reform required to implement the provisions of the
Court’s orders. This commitment is reflected in the goals that have been established, the
willingness to listen carefully to concerns and recommendations, and the continuous interest in
seeking effective solutions for identified problems. Since the entry of the Settlement Agreement,
the presence of stable leadership with this level of commitment has been of critical importance.
This report examines the State’s performance in addressing its obligations and offers
recommendations to the Court regarding findings of substantial compliance or noncompliance.
The work to be completed is at a pivotal point. The Extension Agreement states, “The Parties
anticipate that the State will have substantially complied with all provisions of the Extension
Agreement by June 30, 2018. Substantial compliance is achieved if any violations of the
Extension Agreement are minor or occasional and are not systemic.” (EA 48)
In the last report to the Court, filed on March 27, 2018, it was documented that the State’s
progress in achieving substantial compliance with all of the Court-ordered obligations has not
been uniform. The same conclusion is reached as the result of the extensive work completed for
this report.
2
There is clear evidence that certain key obligations, such as the transition of individuals with DD
from State Hospitals to more integrated community settings, have been addressed and
expectations largely have been met. For example, by the end of FY 2018, the number of
community placements from State Hospitals reflected a “reasonable pace,” as is required per EA
7. Areas of significant concern in past years, such as the identification and prevention of health-
related risks, have received focused attention and remedial actions have either been implemented
or are well underway. These accomplishments are to be commended; there were many
challenges that needed to be overcome.
At the same time, there is also clear evidence that other major obligations cannot receive a
recommendation for a finding of substantial compliance.
For example, one of the most prominent gaps in reaching substantial compliance is access to
Supported Housing, a cornerstone of the mental health system reform. Supported Housing is
defined as:
Supported Housing is: (a) integrated permanent housing with tenancy rights; (b) linked
with flexible community-based services, including psycho-social supports, that are
available to individuals when they need them, but are not mandated as a condition of
tenancy. (SA III.B.2.c.i.; see also EA 36)
As discussed at length in the last report to the Court, and as reiterated in the narrative below, the
provisions related to Supported Housing are still not implemented on a systemic basis for all of
the subgroups of the Target Population, as defined in Provision 30 of the Extension Agreement,
which states:
For purposes of Paragraphs 31 to 40, the “Target Population” includes the approximately
9,000 individuals with SPMI who are currently being served in State Hospitals, who are
frequently readmitted to the State Hospitals, who are frequently seen in emergency
rooms, who are chronically homeless, and/or who are being released from jails and
prisons. The Target Population also includes individuals with SPMI and forensic status in
the care of DBHDD in the State Hospitals, if the relevant court finds that community
services are appropriate, and individuals with SPMI and a co-occurring condition, such as
substance abuse disorders or traumatic brain injuries.
DBHDD has initiated specific actions intended to help achieve substantial compliance with its
obligations to the members of the Target Population. These actions include, within FY 2018, the
award of contracts to establish 12 Regional Housing Outreach Coordinators with responsibility
for “…the delivery of housing outreach case management services, specifically; community
outreach targeting access to supported housing for individuals who meet the DOJ settlement
criteria and are in the following settings: county jails, state prisons and community hospital
emergency rooms within providers designated service area.” 1 Although this is an action that has
potential value, outreach efforts to date have been limited or incomplete. In addition, even when
1 Job Description, Regional Housing Outreach Coordinator (HOC).
3
fully implemented, this outreach will not be available to all 159 counties in Georgia. Under the
terms of the contract awards, outreach is targeted to 98 counties or 62% of the entire state.
The State has taken action to recommend a finding of substantial compliance for the obligations
in EA 32 through 35 requiring the provision of Bridge Funding and Georgia Housing Voucher
Program (GHVP) vouchers. However, it is important to emphasize that the State has failed to
come into compliance with the Supported Housing Provisions of the SA and EA that require the
State to have the capacity to provide Supported Housing to the approximately 9,000 people in the
Target Population who need Supported Housing. At this time, based on these and other
documented facts, it is the carefully considered judgment of the Independent Reviewer and her
subject matter consultants that the State has not met the requirements for findings of substantial
compliance to be recommended for EA 36, 38 and 40.
Throughout this report, there has been a conscientious attempt to obtain current facts that are
reliable and that will support the recommendations made regarding substantial compliance or
noncompliance. Fact-finding has benefitted greatly from ongoing access to the Commissioners of
DBHDD and, as needed, DCH. Staff members from both DBHDD and DCA were instrumental
in providing information relevant to the independent review of the agreements. In particular, the
Director of Settlement Coordination and her Administrative Assistant were incredibly responsive
to, and understanding of, the many demands placed upon them, often on short notice.
The guidance and assistance so generously provided by the attorneys for the State of Georgia and
the United States Department of Justice have been especially helpful. The monthly meetings with
the State and the United States have been productive and informative.
The Independent Reviewer’s reporting has been facilitated by ongoing discussions with many
people with an investment in the systems of support for individuals with a disability. The
inclusion of the Amici, other advocates, community stakeholders and individuals with a
disability and their families has been and continues to be vitally important to meaningful
systemic reform. The Independent Reviewer and her subject matter consultants very much
appreciate the information and thoughtful insight received from them throughout the years.
4
Methodology
The fact-finding for this report involved extensive fieldwork as well as multiple meetings with
the Parties, the Amici and advocates for members of the Target Population, staff from
community service provider agencies, clinicians and social workers in two State Hospitals,
representatives of local government agencies, and other interested stakeholders, including
individuals and family members who are at the crux of the Settlement Agreement and the
Extension Agreement. Of particular interest were the meetings held on June 27, 2018 with
agencies providing support to documented resettled refugees and adults with a primary language
other than English. The clients of these agencies included individuals with SPMI who would
benefit from the services implemented under the Agreement. 2
In preparation for this specific report, the Independent Reviewer and her subject matter
consultants spent 53 days on site in Georgia. Fieldwork occurred in all six DBHDD Regions.
Site visits were made to State Hospitals, community Supported Housing sites, group homes,
jails, including a jail where one individual with DD was being held, crisis homes, family homes
and host homes. At each residential setting, members of the Target Population were met and, if
possible, interviewed. Individuals with SPMI who were homeless were interviewed on the
streets.
Visits to three county jails in southern Georgia included discussions with Sheriffs and/or Jail
Administrators and with correctional agency staff responsible for mental health care in the jail.
A telephone call was completed with the Director of Mental Health for two jails in a
metropolitan Atlanta county. One incarcerated individual with SPMI was interviewed in a
Region 4 jail. Discussions were also held with Public Defenders and other attorneys who
represent individuals in jails or prisons.
Reports, statistics and other essential documents were provided by DBHDD. It has not been
possible to verify all of this information through independent review; any questions about
accuracy or completeness are noted, if needed.
The Department of Justice requested detailed data regarding the implementation of services and
supports throughout the course of the Settlement Agreement and the Extension Agreement. Data
provided by DBHDD in response to those requests have been referenced throughout this report.
Subject matter consultants to the Independent Reviewer examined discrete provisions of the
Settlement Agreement and its Extension. The consultants’ work focused on the State’s efforts to
achieve compliance with its obligations. Those findings have been shared with the Parties;
subsequent discussions have been held or are planned, as necessary.
Dr. Patrick Heick, a behavior analyst, and three nurse consultants, Marisa Brown, Julene
Hollenbach and Shirley Roth, reviewed a targeted sample of 31 individuals with DD who were in
2 Key staff at these three agencies either did not know about the availability of mental health services, including
Supported Housing, or had limited knowledge. Outreach to agencies such as these needs to be prioritized so that
they can benefit from available supports for adults with SPMI.
5
a crisis home, jail or had experienced encounters with law enforcement (12), transitioned to the
community during FY 2018 (7), or were included for health/medical reasons on the Statewide
Clinical Oversight (SCO) list (12). Each of these reviews included a site visit, document review
and, with the exception of the individual in jail, the completion of a Monitoring Questionnaire.
(The Independent Reviewer and DBHDD developed this Questionnaire during the early years of
the Settlement Agreement.) Dr. Heick’s summary report is attached. The individual reviews
completed by Dr. Heick and the three nurse consultants have been provided to the Parties.
In addition, as part of the review of mortality investigations, Marisa Brown, RN conducted site
visits to four locations where deaths of individuals with DD had occurred. Two of these
residences were the sites of deaths that occurred during the transition period.
Laura Nuss reviewed Support Coordination by interviewing DBHDD staff, Directors of Support
Coordination agencies and members of advocacy organizations. She examined all documentation
provided by DBHDD related to its efforts to comply with these provisions of the Extension
Agreement. She interviewed two Support Coordinators for individuals placed in a crisis respite
home. Ms. Nuss’s report is attached.
Dr. Angela Rollins analyzed all fidelity reviews completed in FY 2018. The report from Dr.
Rollins is attached.
Dr. Beth Gouse spent time at the end of the quarter at Georgia Regional Hospital Atlanta
(GRHA) and Georgia Regional Hospital Savannah (GRHS). She reviewed the hospital records of
all adults discharged to shelters or hotels/motels and discussed discharge planning with hospital
staff. Dr. Gouse also reviewed discharge planning for forensic clients, including those
hospitalized at the Cook Building at Central State Hospital (CSH) in Milledgeville. The reports
from Dr. Gouse are attached.
Martha Knisley reviewed DBHDD’s efforts to comply with obligations related to Supported
Housing. She met with DBHDD staff and staff from DCA. She also interviewed representatives
from local agencies responsible for homeless individuals with SPMI, mental health service
providers, Housing Outreach Coordinators, individuals with SPMI who had obtained or were in
need of Supported Housing, and attorneys who represented adults with SPMI. She conducted site
visits in Regions 2 and 3.
The consultants’ work will be discussed throughout this report. Copies of reports have been
provided to the Parties; certain reports will be filed with the Court. The narrative for this report
relies substantially on the fieldwork conducted by the Independent Reviewer’s subject matter
consultants.
The Independent Reviewer and her consultants are acutely aware that we placed numerous
demands on State staff and community providers who were part of our fact-finding efforts. We
truly appreciate the assistance given by so many people to enable us to complete our work.
As required, the Parties were provided with a draft of this report and were given the opportunity
to comment on its findings. Both the United States and the State provided detailed comments in a
6
timely manner. Comments were carefully considered and revisions to the report were made as
appropriate. The response from the State included a considerable amount of descriptive
information on the structure and processes of the system. Although that background information
was useful to the Independent Reviewer, it did not significantly refute the conclusions reached in
this report and, for the most part, was not included. It has been requested that DBHDD provide
more outcome-driven data for any future reports.
7
Development of the Foundation for a Community-Based System
Over the last eight years, the State has developed the major building blocks of a community-
based system of support for adults with SPMI and those with DD. These core building blocks
form the foundation for more integrated services throughout Georgia. It is indisputable, and
certainly highly commendable, that the State has made major strides in shifting from an
institution-based system of care to one that is largely community-based.
As of June 30, 2018, the State estimated that it had devoted about 263.5 million dollars in State
funds alone for the community-based services prompted by the Settlement and Extension
Agreements. Looking at the larger budget that includes non-SA/EA items, in FY 2018, the State
estimates that it is spending about 314.5 million dollars more on community services than in FY
2011, the beginning of the implementation efforts under the Settlement Agreement.
As a result of this investment, as reported by the State, the following core services are available
throughout DBHDD’s six geographical Regions:
Behavioral Health:
• Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) Teams: 22 ACT teams across the state. ACT
services provided to the Target Population with SPMI must conform to the Dartmouth
Assertive Community Treatment Scale (DACTS). As outlined in the attached report by
Dr. Rollins, these teams continue to be monitored for their fidelity to DACTS. In general,
the teams scored very well on the requisite measures with all but two teams achieving
satisfactory fidelity scores (and the other two teams were close.) 3 As of June 30, 2018,
1,614 adults were enrolled in ACT services statewide. It should be noted, however, that
existing ACT capacity is far greater than utilization. In essence, this means the State is
paying for ACT capacity for several hundred people but not utilizing it; the State should
take effective steps to close the gap so that more individuals in need will access ACT
services that are already funded.
• Community Support Teams (CSTs) have been increased by two over the Settlement
Agreement obligation. There are now ten CSTs. As of June 30, 2018, 343 individuals
statewide were receiving CST services.
• Supported Employment continues to be available through 20 agency providers at 25
different locations throughout the state. As of June 30, 2018, there were 1,214 individuals
engaged with Supported Employment services.
• Case Management is provided through 52 agencies statewide; Intensive Case
Management (ICM) is available through 16 agencies. Both of these services exceed the
numerical requirements in the Settlement Agreement for 45 Case Management providers
and 14 ICM teams. As of June 30, 2018, there were 2,107 individuals receiving ICM
supports.
• Crisis Service Centers now total 11, more than required by the Settlement Agreement.
3 It should be noted, however, that Dr. Rollins has identified areas of concern that require oversight, including the
use of remote assessment, the waiting list for ACT in metro Atlanta, the rapid turnover of ACT consumers and the
scoring of the co-occurring disorders model. DBHDD is urged to review and address these identified concerns.
8
• DBHDD has confirmed that there are 22 Crisis Stabilization Units in operation across the
state.
• Crisis teams respond to calls in all 159 counties with an average reported response time
of 51 minutes; this conforms to SA parameters.
• Nineteen crisis respite apartments, with 63 beds, are available now; 18 apartments were
required under the Settlement Agreement.
Developmental Disabilities:
• There are 12 mobile crisis teams currently responding to calls across the state. Six teams
were required under the Settlement Agreement.
• There are 12 crisis respite homes, with four beds each, available statewide. This is the
number of homes required under the Settlement Agreement.
The development and sustained implementation of the core services established under the
Settlement Agreement have helped the State to achieve the intended effect of reducing reliance
on institutional settings.
Background and Context for Placements from State Hospitals
As reported previously, over the course of the Settlement Agreement and its Extension, there has
been a substantial reduction in inpatient beds at the State Hospitals. At the time of the entry of
the Settlement Agreement on October 29, 2010, seven State Hospitals served people with a
developmental disability and/or a mental illness. In October 2010, these institutions combined
had a total capacity of 2,436 inpatient beds. That month, they served 2,603 unduplicated clients
with either disability; the average daily census was 1,821 people.
There are now five State Hospitals. Northwest Georgia Regional Hospital and Southwestern
State Hospital are closed. Adult mental health services are no longer provided at Central State
Hospital. On June 30, 2018, there were a total of 1,110 adults 4 institutionalized in the State
Hospitals. The majority of these adults (57%) are in secured forensic units.
On June 30, 2018, the Adult Mental Health units in the State Hospitals had a total capacity for
313 individuals. On that same date, the combined census was 307 adults with a mental illness.
On June 30, 2018, there were 628 individuals in forensic units at the State Hospitals; the
maximum capacity is 641 adults. As of June 30, 2018, there were 47 adults with DD in these
forensic units, an increase of nine individuals from the same timeframe in FY 2017. (Twenty-
eight of these same forensic clients (60%) were hospitalized in the forensic units at this time in
FY 2017.)
As of June 30, 2018, 133 adults with DD reside at Gracewood in Augusta, 12 adults with DD are
in the Adult Mental Health units at ECRH (2), GRHA (6), GRHS (3) and WCGRH (1). There
4In the March report filed with the Court, it was documented that there were 1090 adults institutionalized and 57%
were in secured units.
9
are 25 individuals with DD and health/medical needs in the Skilled Nursing Unit (SNF) at
GRHA. There are 47 individuals with DD in forensic units at the State Hospitals.
Both Gracewood and the SNF at GRHA have adults in residence there who have a mental health
diagnosis but not a DD diagnosis. There are ten individuals with this diagnosis in the SNF at
Gracewood who were transferred from the Craig Center. There are three individuals with a
mental health diagnosis in the SNF at GRHA.
In summary, at the initiation of the Settlement Agreement in October 2010, there were 726
individuals with DD institutionalized in State Hospitals. As of June 30, 2018, in all State
Hospital units, there are a total of 217 individuals with DD who now remain. Since October
2010, there are 509 individuals with DD fewer in State Hospitals.
Agreement Requirement: The SA prohibits the State from admitting or serving in State
Hospitals anyone under the age of 18 (unless the person is an emancipated minor). (SA
III.C.1.)
Agreement Requirement: The SA requires the State to stop admitting people with DD
to the State Hospitals. (SA III.A.1.)
There are no children in any of the State Hospitals. Admissions of individuals with DD have
stopped except that courts still order placement of adults with DD and a forensic status into the
State Hospitals.
Agreement Requirement: The SA prohibits the State from transferring people with DD
and SPMI from one institutional setting to another unless the individual makes an
informed choice or the person’s medical condition requires it. The State may transfer
individuals with DD with forensic status to another State Hospital if this is appropriate to
that person’s needs. The State may not transfer an individual from one institutional
setting to another more than once. (SA III.C.2.)
Sixty adults residing in the Craig Center at Central State Hospital were transferred to other State
Hospitals when that institutional unit was closed in 2015. The Independent Reviewer has not
been informed of any institutional transfers since the closure of the Craig Center. 5
5
There now are 28 former residents of the Craig Center still institutionalized in State Hospitals. Seventeen of these
adults have DD (61%) and would be eligible for a Waiver-funded community placement. Seven of the 17
individuals with DD reside in the SNF at Gracewood and ten individuals with DD are placed in the SNF at GRHA.
There are 11 former Craig Center residents (39%) who are diagnosed with a mental illness; ten individuals live in
the Gracewood SNF and one former resident of the Craig Center is placed in an Adult Mental Health Unit at GRHA.
Based on information to date, there are no community placement plans for ten of the individuals with a mental
illness and the options for funding are seriously constrained. At this point, there appears to be scant likelihood that
the majority of the remaining residents with a mental health diagnosis transferred from the Craig Center will obtain
an individualized integrated residential setting outside of a State Hospital. DBHDD cites opposition to community
placement in nine cases but the extent to which community-based options have been actually explored through site
visits and firsthand experience was not shared with the Independent Reviewer. Meaningful informed choice would
require opportunities to learn and experience community-based resources.
10
Agreement Requirement: The EA requires the State to notify the IR within seven days
of its determination that the most integrated setting for any individual with DD is the
State Hospital, a SNF, an ICF, or a psychiatric facility. (EA 10; see also EA 8). The SA
allows the IR to conduct an independent assessment of any such determination. (EA 10)
The State has consistently affirmed that all individuals with DD can be served in integrated
community-based settings with appropriately individualized and implemented services and
supports.
Provisions Related to Individuals with DD
Status of Transitions of Individuals with DD from State Hospitals
Since the last report filed with the Court, there has continued to be strong and stable leadership
assigned to the transition process obligations agreed to by the Parties. This leadership includes
key staff assigned at DBHDD, its expert consultants retained to assist the State, and in certain
provider agencies. In addition, the State has benefitted from proactive and forceful advocacy on
behalf of the DD stakeholders throughout the state and the compelling voices of individuals with
DD and their families/friends.
There have been 47 community placements from State Hospitals during this FY 2018. 6 Men and
women with DD, with differing levels of required support, have moved from ECRH, including
Gracewood (27), CSH forensic units (8), GRHS (6), GRHA (1) and WCRH (5). Transitions have
occurred at a reasonable pace, as required by EA 7.
Of particular note is the effort made to sustain certain community placements during the post-
transition adjustment period. The Independent Reviewer requested additional information about
the placement of one individual, S.T., who changed community residences. There was
exceptional effort made by DBHDD and provider agencies to prevent hospitalization for
behavioral disturbances as well as any further interactions with law enforcement. Mr. T.’s
preferences were respected. DBHDD even assigned familiar staff from Gracewood to stay with
Mr. T. in a motel while a new residence was being prepared for him. As of this report, Mr. T. is
stable and seems contented with his residential setting and staff.
In addition to Mr. T., seven additional individuals who transitioned in FY 2018 were reviewed
for this report. A brief summary, overall very positive, for each transitioned individual is set out
here:
• G.D.: Ms. D. receives one to one staffing when she is awake; this will be reassessed after
six months. With careful attention to her diet and food choices, Ms. D. has lost 19
unwanted pounds. She has also reconnected to her family; they did not visit her while she
6 There were 48 transitions reported by DBHDD. However, one individual, Z.B., was transitioned to a community
placement from GRHS in July 2017 but was returned to the State Hospital after repeated elopements and medication
refusals. A Dekalb County Superior Court judge ordered that ZB be returned to DBHDD custody. A case expeditor
still follows ZB but he is not determined to be ready yet for discharge from GRHS.
11
was hospitalized at ECRH. Despite these positive findings, concern was noted about the
number of individuals being supervised by the agency RN. Reportedly, she is responsible
for the supervision of health care to 160 individuals. (This concern was discussed with
the Director of the Office of Health and Wellness.)
• P.H.: There were no environmental issues cited in the report. The post-transition support
from the Integrated Clinical Support Team (ICST) was noted; the ICST has
recommended assistive technology devices and will conduct training when they are
received. The Independent Reviewer’s nurse consultant expressed concern about the
RN’s level of oversight of medication documentation.
• A.J.: Mr. J.’s undesirable behavior has been decreased post-placement through staff
guidance and many opportunities for community exploration. Progress notes are very
detailed and reflect a wide variety of community outings where Mr. J. is encouraged to
make choices.
• K.S.: Mr. S. attends a day program and appears to have settled into a positive routine. He
experienced sleep disturbance after the move from Gracewood and is now prescribed
medication to help him sleep. It is advised that this medication be monitored and
discontinued as soon as feasible.
• W.S.: One of the most positive benefits for Mr. S. since his transition has been the close
proximity to his brother’s residence. They visit frequently and Mr. S. has now been
baptized and joined his brother’s church. Staff at his home planned a Sunday dinner
celebration for this accomplishment.
• R.W.: The nurse consultant who completed the review described this as one of the most
gratifying visits she has made in Georgia. Mr. W. came to this residence with a history of
serious behavioral disturbances. These undesirable behaviors have been diminished
significantly through relationship building and the use of preferred activities/interests.
His staff are skilled and attentive.
• G.W.: There were no issues of concern. Mr. W. experienced a 14 pound weight loss after
his move from Gracewood but this was monitored and a nutritional plan was
implemented with success. Mr. W.’s weight has been stabilized.
The transition process, while considerably strengthened, will continue to require diligent
oversight. Although there is clear evidence of pre-transition planning and the early assignment of
Support Coordination, three deaths (W.B., W.E., and E.N.,) occurred during the six months
following community placement. As a result, these three deaths, in addition to the death of B.B.,
in FY 2017, have received additional scrutiny by DBHDD, the Columbus Organization and the
Independent Reviewer.
Agreement Requirement: The EA requires the State to develop and regularly update a
transition-planning list for prioritizing transitions of the remaining people with DD in the
State Hospitals. The EA requires the State to move people to the community at a
reasonable pace. (EA 7)
Agreement Requirement: The SA requires that individuals with forensic status be

included in the DD target population. (SA III.A.3.b.)
12
Agreement Requirement: The SA requires that the number of individuals served in a

host home shall not exceed two, and the number of individuals served in any congregate
living setting shall not exceed four. (SA III.A.2.b.ii(B).
DBHDD has complied with the requirement to develop and update transition-planning lists for
all individuals with DD who are institutionalized in State Hospitals.
Individuals with a forensic status have been included consistently in the transition to community
residential settings. These efforts are commended because they frequently require more intensive
planning and are subject to Court approval.
Throughout the course of this case, the State has substantially complied with the requirement that
no more than two individuals be placed in host homes and that the number of individuals placed
in any group home not exceed four individuals.
Recommended Finding: It is recommended that the State be found in substantial compliance

with these three provisions.
Agreement Requirement: For each individual with DD transitioning from a State

Hospital, a support coordinator shall be assigned and engaged in transition planning at
least 60 days prior to discharge. (EA 16.g.)
Once again, in interviews completed by Ms. Nuss, all Support Coordination agencies reported
that this provision remained in compliance. DBHDD also reported substantial compliance in the
documentation provided to the United States and to the Independent Reviewer.

with this obligation.
Agreement Requirement: The EA requires the State to have a properly constituted

team conduct effective transition planning, specifying needed supports and services that
will promote successful transition for each person with DD. The EA requires the State to
involve community providers in the transition planning process and to ensure that all
needed supports and services are arranged and in place at the time of discharge from the
State Hospital. (EA 11)
Based on information provided to the Independent Reviewer by DBHDD, a properly constituted

team had been assembled for each individual transitioned from the State Hospital. Members of
the team included State Hospital staff, the community provider and clinicians working as part of
the ICST, an extended arm of DBHDD’s Integrated Clinical Support Services. The individual
and the family, if known, are an integral part of the team process to the extent possible. There is
excellent oversight of the transition process by the Director of DBHDD’s Office of Transitions,
Division of Developmental Disabilities.
13

with EA 11. Staff should be commended for the work that has been accomplished to strengthen
the transition process.
Agreement Requirement: The EA requires the State to provide effective monitoring

post-discharge and to identify and address any gaps or issues so as to reduce risks of
injury, death, or institutionalization. The EA requires the State to conduct in-person
monitoring visits within 24 hours of discharge, at least once a week for the first month
after discharge, and at least monthly for the next three months. (EA 12)
Agreement Requirement: The EA requires the State to provide “needed” services and
supports to individuals with DD in the community. (EA 13)
Data on post-discharge monitoring were submitted by the State for the report period ending May
31, 2018. In terms of the requisite visits by Support Coordinators, the State reported a
compliance rate of 91%, a two percent increase. The compliance rate for visits by the Regional
Quality Review staff was documented at 89% of the time, an increase of three percent over the
last report.
Current Information provided about the work of the ICST confirmed that post-move monitoring
has occurred but there were no details included as to the identity of the individual or the results
of the monitoring visits.
There were three deaths of individuals with DD who died within six months of their transition in
FY 2018. The Columbus Organization conducts an external qualitative review of DBHDD’s
investigations of post-transition deaths. The Independent Reviewer has received DBHDD’s
investigations for W.E. and E.N. The Columbus reports have not yet been finalized.
Both of these gentlemen were placed in the same community residence in Macon, GA.
E.N. was transitioned from Gracewood to the group home in Macon, GA. on August 15, 2017.
He died on December 13, 2017. The DBHDD investigation of his death identified concerns
about the continuity of his medical care in the community but did not find neglect.
Mr. E. was placed on September 20, 2017 from Gracewood. He died on May 17, 2018. The
investigation of Mr. E.’s death documented deficient practices, including the agency’s failure to
train nursing staff on his healthcare needs. Furthermore, the Intensive Support Coordinator and
the Regional Quality Review staff from Region 6 did not complete all of the visits mandated by
DBHDD’s own protocols and EA 12.
DBHDD’s investigation substantiated neglect in the death of W.E.
In addition, a third individual also died at this address. On November 8, 2016, J.Mc. was placed
in this residence from a nursing home. He died unexpectedly on March 5, 2018 as a result of
aspiration pneumonia. The DBHDD investigation substantiated neglect and identified a number
of deficient practices, including the failure to train temporary agency nurses in the specific
14
protocols for the individuals and the failure to provide proper medical assistance and treatment to
Mr. Mc. in a medical emergency.
On July 18, 2018, the Independent Reviewer’s nurse consultant, Marisa Brown, conducted a site
visit to this group home. The purpose of her visit was to determine if the risks identified in the
DBHDD investigations had been addressed. (Ms. Brown did not conduct an independent
investigation of the individual deaths.) These findings will be discussed with the Parties but
include the conclusions that there is currently adequate RN coverage in the home to provide
appropriate assessment, plan development, staff instruction and monitoring for changes in health
conditions. Protocols for dental, primary care and specialty consultation appear adequate, despite
one instance in which follow-up to the oncologist’s recommendation for re-evaluation did not
occur in a timely manner. (The RN present during the site visit took action to correct this
omission.)
On May 24, 2018, Ms. Brown made an announced site visit to the group home where B.B. died
in FY 2017, within six months of her transition from Gracewood. Neglect was substantiated in
her death. Ms. Brown found that the two individuals still residing in this residence are in a good
state of health; their immediate health issues are being addressed. However, she noted that
management issues, specifically stable staffing, continue to be problematic for this site. New
managers were hired but were not expected to be at work until July 2018, over a month after this
visit was completed.
A Statewide Clinical Oversight (SCO) database was initiated on March 23, 2018. Data derived
from analysis of the database should be useful in identifying areas of risk that require remedial
actions. However, that analytical capacity is still in its formative stages and the analysis was not
available for this report. A report issued in June 2018 by the Division of Performance
Management and Quality Improvement’s Office of Performance Analysis has investigated the
positive impact of receiving SCO for at least six months on reducing the number of hospital and
emergency department admissions, in light of significant increases in health risk and co-
morbidity indicators. This report is a very good effort to begin the systematic analysis of
information available to DBHDD.
In addition, in order to assist in the reduction of potential health-related risk, DBHDD has issued
a standardized form for nursing assessments and templates for health plans. At the request of the
Independent Reviewer, Ms. Brown has reviewed these documents. Her comments will be shared
with the Parties.
In order to further assess whether individuals with DD are receiving “needed services and
supports to individuals in the community through a network of contracted community providers
overseen by the State or its agents,” the Independent Reviewer’s consultant in behavior analysis
and three Registered Nurses conducted site visits throughout the six Regions.
As documented in his summary and in his individual reviews, Dr. Patrick Heick, Board-Certified
Behavior Analyst, examined the behavioral supports provided to 12 individuals; he conducted
site visits for 11 of the 12 individuals in community settings in Regions 5 and 6. Ten of these
individuals were identified in the SCO List as having had encounters with law enforcement. One
15
individual, C.G., returned to a Region 5 Crisis Home after another unsuccessful community
placement. One gentleman was incarcerated in a jail in metropolitan Atlanta.
Dr. Heick’s summary of his findings clearly documents the failure to provide adequate
behavioral supports to individuals with that identified need. Interestingly, Ms. Nuss drew this
same conclusion after speaking with the Executive Directors of six Support Coordination
agencies. Ms. Nuss reported that Support Coordination agencies and the Georgia Advocacy
Office confirm that there is an insufficient number of behavioral health providers in the system,
people remain in crisis homes or psychiatric settings for long periods of time while waiting for a
new provider to provide residential services, and existing residential providers are quick to
discharge individuals who present behavioral health challenges. 7
Based on his review, Dr. Heick has reported that:
• Despite evidence of significant maladaptive behaviors that negatively impacted their

quality of life and greater independence, only seven of the individuals (64%) were
receiving formal behavioral programming through Behavior Support Plans (BSPs) at the
time of the site visit.
• Of the seven individuals with BSPs, prescribed behavioral programming appeared
inadequate. Evidence of adequate ongoing collection, summary and regular review of
both target and replacement behaviors was not found for any BSPs (0%).
• Only four of the seven BSPs (57%) were developed with the involvement of a Board
Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA). The BCBA is the nationally accepted certification
for practitioners of applied behavior analysis.
Dr. Heick’s report is attached.
The Independent Reviewer’s nurse consultants conducted site visits in all six Regions. The
individuals were selected from the SCO List because they had been identified with a life
threatening health-related incident.
The Support Coordinators interviewed about these individuals were notified of the incidents,
with the exception of Support Coordinators who work with individuals living in family homes.
Generally, they learned about the incident on their next visit.
Significant identified issues included:
• B.W.’s agency does not provide any licensed nurses to conduct nursing oversight and
supports to the three individuals in his home. Mr. W. has complex behavioral and health
care needs that must be addressed by a licensed RN. In addition, it was observed that all
staff that support Mr. W. need to be re-trained in interacting with him and should be
clearly and consistently documenting his behaviors.
• J.B. lives with his family. His mother has been attempting to obtain physical therapy
services for him but has not been able to do so.
7 Report by Laura Nuss, page 11.
16
• J.H. has significant psychiatric and behavioral challenges. He requires the services of a
Behavior Specialist for evaluation and the development of a BSP, followed by at least
quarterly monitoring and analysis of behavioral data.
• V.R. lives with his family. His mother has significant health issues herself and urgently
requires assistance with his care. (A conference call was held with DBHDD staff
regarding this situation.)
• C.N. lives in a group home. The nursing staff does not have a reliable system in place to
track the results of significant medical tests and the need for follow-up. There is no
documentation regarding psychiatry visits, yet he receives three psychotropic
medications.
The Independent Reviewer and her clinical consultants would be very responsive to any request
from DBHDD for further discussion about these observations.
Recommended Findings: At this time, based on the information received from DBHDD
regarding post-move monitoring percentages related to the Regional Quality Review staff, a
finding of noncompliance is recommended for EA 12.
In addition, based on the information received for this report from Support Coordination
agencies (discussed below), investigations prepared by DBHDD, independent reviews completed
by experienced clinicians and DBHDD’s own acknowledgement in the IQOMR data (also
discussed below) that behavioral supports are not yet adequate, there is insufficient evidence to
confirm that essential clinical supports, especially in the domain of behavioral programming, are
in place on a systemic basis. Therefore, a finding of noncompliance is recommended for EA 13.
Support Coordination
It has been repeatedly emphasized in these reports to the Court that Support Coordination is a
critical linchpin in the design, provision and monitoring of an individual with DD’s supports. It
is recognized as one of the most important safeguards that can be provided, especially to
someone who is at higher risk because of challenging behavior or complex health/medical needs.
As a result, the Extension Agreement contains detailed requirements for fulfilling this essential
function.
In order to review performance in this area, the Independent Reviewer’s subject matter
consultant, Laura Nuss, again reviewed all documentation that was provided by DBHDD and
discussed the specific issues with DBHDD leadership staff. She also spoke with six of the
Directors of the seven agencies responsible for the provision of Support Coordination throughout
Georgia. 8 She reviewed two individuals currently placed in a crisis respite home by meeting
with staff and the Support Coordinators.
In her review, Ms. Nuss identified the strengths currently evident in the systemic application of
Support Coordination:
8 One Executive Director did not respond to Ms. Nuss’s request for a conversation.
17
• DBHDD has developed and implemented comprehensive policies and procedures

governing the delivery of support coordination and intensive support coordination
services. Georgia also benefits from stable and strong leadership in both state and
support coordination agency positions. Support Coordination Agencies report that
regular meetings with the state leadership have been positive and beneficial to their
shared mission.
• DBHDD also benefits from its organizational capacity in data analysis and reporting.
Performance reporting continues to expand to include additional performance measures
and adds additional elements to standard performance analysis to refine the significance
of those measures.
• Individual Support Coordination Agency performance is strong in meeting policy
expectations for face-to-face visits and increases as individual’s needs and age increase.
The availability of clinical supervision in intensive support coordination has been evident
during all site visits.
• DBHDD also benefits from a robust Administrative Service Organization (ASO) that
carries out regular Person-Centered Reviews and Quality Enhancement Provider
Reviews. The ASO provides comprehensive reports on its findings that can inform
DBHDD about support system strengths and areas in need of improvement.
Agreement Requirement: The SA requires the State to provide Support Coordination to

all Waiver participants. Support Coordination involves developing ISPs that are
individualized and person-centered, helping the person gain access to all needed services
identified in the ISP, and monitoring the ISP and making changes to it as needed. (SA
III.A.2.b.iii.)
The State has complied with the requirement to establish Support Coordination and assign these
resources to Waiver participants. The role of the Support Coordinator, as described in policy, is
consistent with the expectations described above.
Recommended Finding: Substantial compliance is recommended for the obligation to establish

Support Coordination and assign these resources to Waiver participants. However, as is
discussed further below, there are outstanding issues associated with ISP development and
implementation, so there is non-compliance with the second SA sentence above.
Agreement Requirement: The EA requires the State to revise and implement the roles
and responsibilities of Support Coordinators. The EA requires the State to oversee and
monitor that Support Coordinators develop ISPs, monitor the implementation of the ISPs,
recognize each individual’s needs and risks, promote community integration, and help the
individual gain access to needed services and supports. (EA 16.a.)
Support Coordination involves developing ISPs that are individualized and person-
centered, helping the person gain access to all needed services identified in the ISP, and
monitoring the ISP and making changes to it as needed. (SA III.A.2.b.iii.)
The State has revised the role of the Support Coordinator in order to ensure that there is
involvement in the development of the ISP and access to needed services/supports. The Support
Coordinator is expected to monitor the ISP and make changes, as necessary. For the first time,
18
the DBHDD Performance Report, dated June 30, 2018, reports on performance metrics about
ISP development. The report evaluates performance findings for Support Coordination agencies.
However, as is referenced in Ms. Nuss’s report, there are outstanding issues associated with ISP
development and implementation. There are also concerns with regard to delivering needed
behavioral supports, a critical part of an ISP for certain individuals displaying undesirable
behavior.
Delays in the Service Change/Technical Assistance Requests (STAR) process continue to

hamper the performance of Support Coordinators in helping an individual gain access to needed
services and supports. DBHDD did not provide data regarding its performance in processing
STAR requests in a timely manner, even though it reported that it collects that data as of
February 2018.
Six out of seven Support Coordination agency Executive Directors again reported that the STAR
process continues to be problematic, and that performance varied by Region. The Support
Coordination agencies reported that some requests may be reviewed in a timely manner where
others may languish for several months; some requests when denied are not accompanied by an
Adverse Action notice so the individual/guardian can appeal the decision; and there is no
mechanism in the system to notify the Support Coordinator when there has been a decision on
the STAR submission. Support Coordinators report that the speed at which a decision is rendered
does not always align with the urgency of the circumstances driving the request. This issue can
have serious consequences for individuals and providers. Delays in receiving additional staffing
or nursing services place individuals at risk for hospitalization or increased injury, abuse or
neglect. If a provider puts in place the additional staffing or nursing prior to receiving an
approved STAR and the STAR is subsequently denied, the provider must absorb the cost of
those services. This can have a chilling effect on the service delivery system; interviews with the
Support Coordination agencies have confirmed this. Support Coordinators report that this is
especially true when trying to identify providers who will accept individuals with more complex
and/or intense medical or behavioral health needs. It was noted that some of the delay is in part
due to a shortage of nursing staff within DBHDD, that DBHDD has hired a staff person to
coordinate the STAR process and that DBHDD is aware of the challenges. DBHDD is also
preparing to roll out a new consumer information system that is anticipated to improve this
process.
Recommended Finding: Due to the continuing problems with the ISPs, delivering behavioral
supports, and the STAR process, a finding of noncompliance is recommended for EA 16.a. and
the latter part of SA III.A.2.b.iii.
Agreement Requirement: The State is to have the Support Coordinators use a uniform
tool and guidelines for implementation that include criteria, responsibilities, and
timeframes for referrals and actions to address risks to the individual and obtain needed
services and supports for the individual. The tool is to, at least, address: accessibility,
privacy, adequate food and clothing, cleanliness, safety, changes in health status, recent
ER/hospital visits, delivery of services with respect and fidelity to the ISP,
implementation of the BSP, recent crisis calls, existence of natural supports, services in
the most integrated setting, participation in community activities, employment
19
opportunities, access to transportation, control of personal finances, and the individual’s

satisfaction with current supports and services. (EA 16.b.)
As noted in previous reports, DBHDD has implemented the use of a uniform tool and has
published guidelines for the implementation of the tool as required. In her August 2017 report,
Ms. Nuss recommended reviewing this tool and splitting some multi-part questions apart to
improve data analysis. DBHDD completed review of the tool and has implemented a revised
tool, effective January 1, 2018, that addressed that recommendation.
Recommended Finding: It is recommended that DBHDD be found in substantial compliance

with EA 16.b.
Agreement Requirement: The EA requires the State to provide Support Coordinators

with access to CIRs, investigation reports, and CAPs for all individuals on their
caseloads. Support Coordinators are responsible for reviewing the documentation and for
addressing any findings of gaps in services or supports so as to minimize the health and
safety risks to the individual. (EA 16.d.)
DBHDD corrected the technical error in the Reporting of Critical Incidents (ROCI) information
management system in this reporting period that had prevented critical incident investigative reports
from being transmitted to Support Coordination agencies. The ROCI system is designed to send
“same-day alerts” to the assigned Support Coordination agency when an incident or investigative
report has been uploaded into the system. DBHDD provided data for the period January 1, 2018
2018 through June 15, 2018.
For Critical Incident Reports (CIRs), the average number of days to notify the Support
Coordination agency was 10.3 days for the first quarter of calender year 2018, and 18.1 days for the
second quarter of calendar year 2018. For investigative reports, only one month of data was
reported, without indicating the total number of reports represented. In this month (May 2018), the
average time for notification was 9 days.
To achieve substanital compliance with this measure, DBHDD must ensure that Support
Coordination agencies are timely notified of submitted critical incident reports so that Support
Coordinators can respond in a timely manner to address potential gaps in services and supports
At this time, based on the above, a finding of noncompliance with EA 16.d. continues to be
recommended. However, in its response to the draft of this report, DBHDD stated that the
timeliness of its notification to Support Coordinators had improved. Reportedly, in the month of
June, notifications were sent an average of 2.7 days after approval of the CIR. In July, notifications
were sent an average of 1.9 days after approval of the CIR, and from August 1-15, notifications
were sent an average of 1.3 days after approval of the CIR. This information was provided only
recently and, therefore, has not yet been verified by independent review. If these facts are confirmed
and if this trend continues, a recommended finding of substantial compliance with EA 16.d. may be
indicated in the future.
20
Agreement Requirement: The State is to ensure that Support Coordinators have no

more than 40 individuals on their caseloads and that Intensive Support Coordinators have
no more than 20 individuals on their caseloads. (EA 16.e.)
DBHDD provided caseload data for Support Coordination as of June 30, 2018. The data
document the following performance:
Support Coordination Number In Percent
Agency of SCs Compliance Compliance
Agency #1 29 21 72%
Agency #2 9 4 44%
Agency #3 132 126 95%
Agency #4 11 11 100%
Agency #5 109 86 79%
Agency #6 51 51 100%
Agency #7 80 74 93%
Support Coordination agencies acknowledge the challenges with maintaining caseload compliance,
especially if the agency accepts all referrals. Balancing funding, hiring, short-term absences and the
geographic distribution of referrals is an ongoing management challenge. Support Coordination
agencies also noted the increasing demands of individuals who are assigned to general Support
Coordination caseloads yet have significant service coordination needs.
Recommended Finding: In light of the data submitted by DBHDD, a recommendation is made for a
finding of noncompliance with 16.e.
Agreement Requirement: The EA requires the State to ensure that Support

Coordinators visit each individual at least once per month (or once per quarter for
individuals who only receive SE or day services). Intensive Support Coordinators are to
visit each individual based on the individual’s needs, but at least once per month; for
individuals who are not stable, visits are to be at least once per week. Visits can take
place at the person’s home or other places where the individual is during the day; some
visits are to be unannounced. (EA 16.f.)
The most recent DBHDD Support Coordination Performance Report continued to state that there
was substantial compliance in face-to-face visits per DBHDD policy. For the period from
January through March 2018, face-to-face visit compliance for Support Coordinators by agency
reportedly ranged from 90% to 100%. For intensive support coordination, face-to-face visits are
required at least one time per month. Here again, compliance was reported as significantly above
90% except for one month for one agency for this same time period. 9 In addition, DBHDD has
analyzed the number of face-to-face visits based on need using age and health care levels as
measures of need in the February and June 2018 Support Coordination Performance reports. In
9 DBHDD Support Coordination Performance Report, June 30, 2018, pp. 19 and 21.
21
both instances, the results substantiate “that as health risk (represented by HCL and increasing
age) rises, the number of face-to-face visits also generally rises.” 10
Although the Independent Reviewer wishes to acknowledge the work of DBHDD in tracking this
requirement from the EA, she has not been able to confirm this information. The findings from
the work completed by Dr. Heick, in particular, have raised questions about the number of visits
to individuals who are not stable and, according to EA 16.f., should be visited at least once per
week. In addition, the lack of compliance with caseload size may result in fewer visits than
needed to resolve outstanding concerns. As a result, the Independent Reviewer has decided to
defer a recommendation on compliance until she can complete additional fact-finding on this
obligation.
Agreement Requirement: By June 30, 2017, the State shall require all of its support
coordination agencies and contracted providers serving individuals with DD in the
community to develop internal risk management and quality improvement programs in
the following areas: incidents and accidents; healthcare standards and welfare; complaints
and grievances; individual rights violations; practices that limit freedom of choice or
movement; medication management; infection control; positive behavior support plan
tracking and monitoring; breaches of confidentiality; protection of health and human
rights; implementation of ISPs; and community integration. (EA 28)
DBHDD revised its Provider Manual for Community Developmental Disability Providers to
include this requirement. The revision was posted on June 1, 2017 with an effective date of July
1, 2017.
DBHDD provided letters of attestation from all Support Coordination agencies indicating that
each agency had in place a risk and quality management and improvement plan, as required by
Provision 28. DBHDD also indicated it is working with its ASO to include an evaluation of this
requirement into future Support Coordination agency provider reviews.
The Support Coordination agencies provided evidence of their respective risk and quality
management and improvement plans to Ms. Nuss at her request. The plans varied in detail; no
agency provided evidence of implementation of the plan. One agency executive indicated that it
was still not clear, at least to this agency, what was expected by DBHDD in this area. Four
agencies submitted plans found to be sufficient; one agency provided a policy that indicated it
should have a plan but it was not provided; one agency submitted a plan that was incomplete;
and one agency submitted a plan still under development.
Recommended Finding: Based on the information submitted directly by the Support

Coordination agencies, a finding of noncompliance is recommended for EA 28.
10 DBHDD Support Coordination Performance Report, June 30, 2018, p. 22.
22
Individuals with Complex Needs
As reported previously, the Extension Agreement requires the State to implement a number of
actions in order to protect the health and safety of individuals with DD who live in community-
based settings and may require heightened scrutiny because of their complex medical or
behavioral needs. There are two lists that summarize the issues and supports required for
individuals who are at risk. The High Risk Surveillance List (HRSL) addresses individuals with
DD who transferred from State Hospitals to community-based settings under the terms of the
Settlement Agreement and its Extension. The Statewide Clinical Oversight List (SCO) includes
individuals who live in community-based settings but were not previously transferred from a
State Hospital. DBHDD’s Office of Health and Wellness (OHW) enters the information for both
lists. The Office of Health and Wellness is responsible for the maintenance of both lists and has
the primary responsibility for monitoring that appropriate actions are taken to ensure that any
adverse situations are addressed and remedied.
Agreement Requirement: The EA requires the State to maintain a High Risk

Surveillance List of individuals with DD in the community, who transitioned from a State
Hospital since the entry of the SA, who face a heightened level of risk due to the
complexity of their medical or behavioral needs and/or their community providers’
inability to meet those needs. (EA 13, 14) The State is to identify, assess, monitor, and
stabilize them, provide them with Statewide Clinical Oversight and Support Coordination
per EA criteria. (EA 13) The HRSL shall include identifying data, as well as HRST
score and a summary of CIRs and clinical findings that indicate heightened risk due to
complex medical or behavioral needs. For all individuals on the HRSL, the State is to
monitor CIRs, Support Coordination notes, and clinical assessments. The State is to
update the HRSL at least once a month. (EA 14.a.)
DBHDD has complied with the obligation to develop and maintain a High Risk Surveillance List
(HRSL). The list is updated on a monthly basis and shared with the United States Department of
Justice and the Independent Reviewer. Support Coordinators have this information. Residential
providers have stated repeatedly, however, that they are not aware of an individual’s placement
on the HRSL. The HRSL is organized with each individual’s name, current provider and address;
the HRST risk level is noted as well. A summary of CIRs and clinical findings are not included
in the most recent list reviewed. However, as of the July 2018 list, a summary of DBHDD’s
processes and the summary data for individuals assessed during that time period was provided.
Agreement Requirement: The EA requires the State to place individuals on the HRSL
based on the following escalation criteria:
Health - increase in HRST score; ER visit; hospitalization; recurring serious

illness without resolution; or episode of aspiration, seizures, bowel obstruction,
dehydration, GERD, or unmet need for medical equipment or healthcare
consultation;
Behavioral – material change in behavior; behavioral incident with intervention

by law enforcement; or functional/cognitive decline;
23
Environmental – threat or actual discharge from a residential provider; change in

residence; staff training or suitability concern; accessibility issues; loss of family
or natural supports; discharge from a day provider;
Other – confirmed identification of any factor above by a provider, Support

Coordinator, family member, or advocate. (EA 14.b.)
Based on a review of the structure of the HRSL and the information provided monthly,
individuals are placed on the HRSL based on these criteria. However, it is not known
independently whether the HRSL is complete and that it includes all individuals who meet these
criteria. The Independent Reviewer must rely on DBHDD to confirm the thoroughness of the
HRSL.
Agreement Requirement: The EA requires the State to conduct the following oversight
and intervention activities for each individual on the HRSL until the State determines the
individual is stable and no longer designated as high risk:
OHW is to oversee that the initial responses to the identified risks are completed
and documented until the risks are resolved.
For an emergency, the provider is to call 911 or crisis services, and notify the
Support Coordinator (SC), Field Office (FO), and OHW.
For deteriorating health (not imminently life threatening), the provider is to

respond and notify the SC within 24 hours; if the risk is not resolved within 72
hours, the provider or SC is to notify the FO and OHW.
For a risk that does not destabilize the health or safety of the individual, the
provider is to respond, inform the SC, and verify completion of the response with
the SC before the next SC visit or 30 days (whichever is sooner).
If the risk is not resolved through the steps above, the State is to conduct an in-
person assessment of the individual within seven days of the initial response.
The State assessment is to be conducted by an RN/medical professional with

advanced medical degree in the area of risk.
The assessment is to include direct observation of staff to verify staff knowledge

and competency to implement the risk reduction interventions, and the assessment
is to identify any concerns/issues regarding individualized needs and identify
necessary follow-up activities with a schedule for completion to address the
concerns/issues.
24
The assessment and follow-up activities are to be noted on the HRSL and
recorded in the individual’s electronic record with access by the provider, SC, FO,
OHW, and ICST.
If the State assessment finds service-delivery deficiencies that jeopardize the

health of the individual, the State is to require all pertinent provider staff to
receive competency-based training in that deficient service-delivery area.
The State is to oversee that the follow-up activities identified in the State
assessment are completed/repeated and documented/revised until the risk is
resolved. (EA 14.c.)
Recommended Finding: For the reasons discussed earlier in this report, a finding of
noncompliance is recommended for EA 13. The State is supposed to be operating a system that
provides needed services and supports to people with DD in the community. This is not
occurring to the extent required, especially for people with challenging behaviors. A finding of
substantial compliance is recommended for EA 14.a. and 14.b. because the HRSL is structured
and updated as required. A finding of substantial compliance for EA 14.c. cannot be
recommended at this time. This decision is reached for the following reasons: 1) There was
conflicting information received by the Independent Reviewer and her consultant regarding the
timeliness of notifications about critical incidents/risks. Although DBHDD has since submitted
more recent notification data, for the first time and after receipt of the initial draft of this report,
that information could not be independently verified in time for this report; 2) data provided by
DBHDD regarding the requirements of EA 14.c. are limited solely to the month of July 2018 and
are, therefore, insufficient to determine compliance on a systemic basis over a reasonable period
of time; and 3) reviews of individuals with challenging high-risk behaviors documented the
failure to train staff in the consistent competency-based application of individualized
interventions. There was also insufficient data and information to enable the Independent
Reviewer to determine if the system’s intervention is adequate and appropriate to ensure that the
individuals are stable and the outstanding risks are resolved as required by EA 14.c. In order to
recommend a finding of substantial compliance for EA 14.c., the Independent Reviewer would
expect to see data, similar to that provided for July 2018, for a longer period of time and in
reference to individuals residing in all six Regions of the state. There were no data provided for
individuals on the Statewide Clinical Oversight list, a significantly longer list of individuals.
Agreement Requirement: The EA requires the State to implement a Statewide Clinical

Oversight program in all regions of the state to minimize risks to individuals with DD in
the community who face heightened risk due to complex needs. SCO includes multi-
disciplinary assessment, monitoring, training, TA, and mobile response to providers and
SCs. (EA 15.a.) SCO is provided through a team of experienced RNs, Masters-level
behavioral experts, OTs/PTs/SLTs, who may be from the OHW or FO. (EA 15.b.)
The State is to develop a protocol that states the responsibility and timeframes for
providers and SCs to engage the SCO team to address individuals with heightened risk
per the three risk criteria set forth in the previous Agreement Requirement until the risk is
resolved. The protocol is to set forth the circumstances when and the mechanisms
25
through which the SCO team receives electronic notification of a heightened risk, as well
as the timeframes for State review and response which are to be based on the imminence
and severity of the risk. (EA 15.c.)
The State is to train its providers and SCs on the protocol, how to recognize issues that
place a person at heightened risk, and how to request consultation/TA from OHW and
FO. (EA 15.d.)
The State is to facilitate consults/TA to providers/SCs to address heightened risks. (EA

15.e.) The State is to provide a centralized and continuously monitored hotline and email
address to receive consultation/TA requests. The State shall assess, assign for response,
and respond to such requests consistent with the nature, imminence, and severity of the
need. (EA 15.e.)
Recommended Findings: The State has substantially met the terms of EA 15.b., c., d. and one
aspect of 15.e. (the hotline and email address). DBHDD has complied with the obligations to
establish a Statewide Clinical Oversight program in all areas of the State. Both a hotline and an
email address have been implemented. A protocol was developed and provider agencies were
trained in the requirements of the protocol. Although, provider agencies continue to state that
they do not know if a certain individual is included on the Statewide Clinical Oversight list.
As cited earlier in this report, the serious and widespread inadequacy of behavioral supports has
continued to place individuals with seriously maladaptive behaviors at risk. It is not possible at
this time to recommend a finding of substantial compliance for EA 15.a. and the other
requirements for 15.e. Until the State can demonstrate that sufficient clinical resources are
available for behavioral supports, these obligations must be recommended as in noncompliance.
There were no data provided for individuals on the Statewide Clinical Oversight list.
The State is to have medical and clinical staff available to consult with community health
care practitioners (primary care doctors, dentists, hospitals/ERs, specialists) to provide
assistance to providers and SCs who report difficulty accessing or receiving needed
services from community health care practitioners. (EA 15.f.)
In addition to clinical resources available through the Regional Field Offices, DBHDD has
retained the services of a consultant, CRA Consulting, to act as an ICST. The ICST exists to
provide professional clinical support services to individuals with DD when authorized by the
OHW and in the absence of timely, available community clinical services and supports. ICST
services are provided in collaboration with the individual’s primary care provider, residential
provider and Support Coordinator.
Monthly reports from CRA describe the clinical activities that have occurred, including technical
assistance/training and face-to-face visits. Specific information is not provided about the
individual cases so it is not possible to determine the level of acuity or the degree of clinical
support that was provided in each situation.
26
DBHDD has reported that it has established relationships with a variety of organizations, such as
the Dentistry for the Developmentally Disabled Foundation and Emory University, where a 12-
week nursing curriculum addressing the clinical challenges faced by many individuals with DD
is being offered. However, there continues to be widespread concern expressed by Support
Coordinators, providers, attorneys and family members about the lack of available resources for
individuals with complex behavioral needs.
Although DBHDD has taken the administrative and structural actions required, such as
establishing the HRSL and SCO, to implement its obligations under the provisions related to
individuals with complex needs, it is not evident that sufficient resources are available or
deployed to meet the needs of individuals with seriously maladaptive behavioral issues.
Recommended Finding: Although the expertise of the currently available clinical supports is
recognized and respected, it is still premature to recommend a finding of substantial compliance.
At this time, 15.f. is recommended for a finding of noncompliance.
Crisis Services
Crisis Respite Homes (CRHs) were developed as required by the Settlement Agreement.
Agreement Requirement: The State is to provide 12 Crisis Respite Homes, each with
four beds, to provide respite services for people with DD and their families. (SA
III.A.2.c.ii.)
The 12 Crisis Respite Homes have remained operational. There is a 48 bed capacity overall. As
of June 30, 2018, there were 34 individuals in residence. Subsequently, in July 2018, there were
three discharges. Thirty-one individuals remain in the crisis homes as of this date.
Recommended Finding: DBHDD remains in substantial compliance with the specific

requirements for number and size.
Agreement Requirement: The EA requires the State to provide individuals living in the
CRHs with additional clinical oversight and intervention per the EA’s Statewide Clinical
Oversight provisions. (EA 17.b.) The EA requires the State to create a monthly list of
individuals in the CRHs for 30 days or longer with data on lengths of stay, reasons for
entry to the CRH, and barriers to discharge. (EA 17.c.)
DBHDD has complied with the requirements to issue a monthly list regarding individuals with a
stay of 30 days or more. Unfortunately, the barriers to discharge continue to be very challenging
for many of the individuals on the monthly list. These barriers include behavioral management
issues and the lack of qualified providers with the skills and resources for alternative settings.
There is one individual, C.B., who has been placed in a crisis home since June 2013; after
eloping from the crisis home and damaging a neighbor’s vehicle, he is currently in jail. Another
individual, M.W., who was placed in a crisis home in August 2014, is still there. DBHDD is
waiting for his probation officer to approve a residential placement. Four of the current residents
of crisis homes were admitted in 2016. Fourteen individuals have lived in crisis respite homes
27
since 2017. At this time, 31 of the 31 individuals (100%) currently residing in a CRH have been
there for more than 30 days. This number/percentage exceeds that reported in the March report to
the Court.
There is widespread acknowledgement among Support Coordinators, clinical professionals and

advocates that the resources for behavioral interventions are inadequate.
Based on these facts, despite the creation of a monthly list, the Independent Reviewer
recommends a finding of noncompliance with this provision. There has been inadequate progress
on resolving the well-documented systemic inadequacy of qualified provider agencies that will
accept responsibility for individuals with very challenging behavioral issues.
Agreement Requirement: The EA requires the State to assess its crisis response system
and then meet with the IR and the United States to discuss plans for restructuring the
crisis system so as to minimize individuals having to leave their homes during a crisis
and to limit lengths of stay at the CRHs. (EA 17.d.)
The State assessed its crisis response system and issued a Crisis Respite Plan on June 30, 2017.
Comments provided by the Independent Reviewer included concerns about the timelines for
implementation into FY 2018.
Recently, DBHDD provided the Independent Reviewer with an update about its plans for the
restructuring of the crisis system. The RFP was issued on June 4, 2018 and the six responses are
now being reviewed. Approval has been sought from the Department of Administrative Services
to proceed with a cost proposal review. DBHDD continues to work towards the goal of awarding
the contract for a blended mobile crisis response system by October 1, 2018.
Recommended Finding: Until the contract for the restructuring of the crisis response system is
awarded and the actual terms are reviewed and compared to the original plan, it is not possible to
recommend a finding for this provision. The finding will remain deferred.
Investigations and Mortality Reviews
Since the beginning of the Settlement Agreement, there has been extensive work undertaken by
DBHDD to strengthen its investigation and mortality review processes. DBHDD has reissued its
policies, restructured its staffing and its protocols, redesigned its oversight capacity and
consulted external, independent consultants with expertise in this area of responsibility. The
direction that DBHDD has taken to strengthen its investigation and mortality review processes is
consistent with standard practice in the field and is to be commended.
Agreement Requirement: The EA requires the State to implement an effective process

for reporting, investigating, and addressing deaths and Critical Incident Reports (CIRs)
involving alleged criminal acts, abuse or neglect, negligent or deficient conduct by a
provider, or serious injuries to an individual. (EA 20)
28
The State has implemented a number of carefully considered changes in its process for reporting,
investigating and addressing deaths and Critical Incident Reports. After extensive analysis and
thought, DBHDD has redesigned its investigation process. It has taken the excellent step of
removing the responsibility for the investigations of abuse, neglect and death from the provider
agency and assigning it to trained staff at DBHDD. This is a very important change. The incident
reporting system is being revised and, when implemented, will better inform the Corrective
Action Plan (CAP) process. At this time, the remaining issue that prevents a recommended
finding of substantial compliance is the length of time taken to discuss an investigation with
identified deficient practices with the Community Mortality Review Committee (CMRC), so that
a CAP can be required, developed, implemented and monitored. Until the issue of timeliness is
addressed, the system cannot be described as “effective.” Until CAPS are precisely detailed and
rigorously monitored to ensure full implementation, there will be unchecked vulnerabilities in
the State’s system of community-based supports.
Recommended Finding: Although the changes to the investigation process are very positive, a
finding of noncompliance is recommended for EA 20 until DBHDD can demonstrate a more
expeditious referral to the appropriate CMRC, timely implementation of any necessary CAP and
confirmation that any deficient practice has been ameliorated.
Agreement Requirement: The State is to conduct a mortality review of deaths of

individuals with DD who are receiving Waiver services from community providers. (EA
21) The investigation is to be completed by a trained and certified investigator, and an
investigation report is to be submitted to the State’s OIMI within 30 days after the death
is reported. The report is to address any known health conditions at the time of death.
The investigation is to include review of pertinent medical and other records, CIRs for
the three months prior to death, any autopsy, and the most recent ISP, and may include an
interview with direct care staff in the community. The State is to require the providers to
take corrective action to address any deficiency findings in any mortality investigation
report. (EA 21.a.)
The redesign of the investigation process includes these requirements. Changes to the
investigation format and protocols have assisted in meeting the requisite 30-day timeframe.
After review of the facts contained in the CIR, if the individual was receiving DBHDD services
at the time of the death and the death was related to the services being received, DBHDD is to
complete a thorough clinical records review during a Clinical Mortality Review (CMR). If the
CMR yields findings other than potential abuse or neglect, a determination is made regarding the
need for corrective action. If there is a finding of potential abuse or neglect by the provider entity
or staff, including Support Coordination, the case proceeds through the steps of an investigation.
In addition, the Columbus Organization has been retained to review the deaths of individuals
with DD who transitioned from State Hospitals under the terms of the Agreements, including any
individuals who died within six months of the transition itself.
The Columbus Organization, based on its review of records and the initial investigation
completed by DBHDD, issues an opinion as to whether a death was preventable or not. It also
29
cites areas of deficiency in provider and/or DBHDD performance. Recommendations to correct

cited deficiencies are included at the end of each Columbus report. The CMRC for individuals
with DD reviews the findings and recommendations of the Columbus Organization.
There were 39 deaths of DD individuals and 10 deaths of individuals with a DD/MH diagnosis
reported from March 1, 2018 until June 30, 2018. The Independent Reviewer has read the
investigations associated with these deaths; this set of investigations complies with the
requirements of EA 21.a. However, the investigations have not been completely reviewed by the
CMRC so that CAPs can be ordered to correct the deficient practices. As a result, it is unclear if
the providers have taken necessary corrective actions to address any concerns cited in the
investigations.
Recommended Finding: The State is likely to be found in substantial compliance with the
investigation process aspects of EA 21. The work that has been undertaken to strengthen the
investigation process is commendable. It is recommended that the State move as expeditiously as
possible to streamline the process for CMRC review so that CAPs can be instituted and deficient
practices removed. Only when that is accomplished can a finding of substantial compliance be
recommended for EA 21.a.
Agreement Requirement: The EA requires the State to have a Community Mortality

Review Committee (CMRC) conduct a mortality review of certain deaths within 30 days
of completion of the investigation and receipt of relevant documentation. The CMRC is
to issue minutes of its meetings with deficiency findings and recommendations. (EA
21.b.) The State is to require the providers to take corrective actions to address any
deficiency findings from the CMRC. (EA 22)
DBHDD’s Policy 04-108, revised on February 5, 2018, established three Committees to review
deaths of individuals who receive services/supports from DBHDD. The membership of these
Committees appears to be properly constituted and their function is clearly described. Changes
have been made in the review process so that the CMRCs are informed of the implementation of
its recommendations for corrective actions. Semi-annual meetings will be held to discuss system
implications, review recommendations and progress toward implementation and to discuss cross-
functional interventions.
Recommended Finding: Although the foundation is in place for the work of the CMRCs, the
timeline for their review of certain deaths is not yet timely. As a result, there are delayed
instructions to providers who have deficient practices. As referenced above, the extent to which
providers are adequately implementing the CAPs is also unclear. A finding of noncompliance
must be recommended until the timeliness of the process is improved and there is clear
demonstration that all CAPs are implemented to remedy outstanding concerns cited in the
investigations.
Agreement Requirement: The State is to implement a system that tracks deficiencies,

CAPs, and implementation of CAP requirements for both the mortality investigation
reports and the CMRC minutes. (EA 22) The State is to generate a monthly report that
includes each death, CAPs, provider implementation of CAP requirements, and any
30
disciplinary action taken against the provider for failure to implement CAP requirements.
(EA 23) The State is to analyze the death data to identify systemic, regional, and
provider-level trends and compare it to national data. Based on a review of the data, the
State is to develop and implement quality improvement initiatives to reduce mortality
rates for individuals with DD in the community. (EA 24) The State is to publish a report
on aggregate mortality data. (EA 25)
DBHDD has implemented a system to track deficiencies, CAPS, and the implementation of CAP
requirements for both the mortality investigation reports and CMRC minutes. Monthly reports
are generated.
Recommended Finding: Compliance here is mixed. The State has made good progress with
tracking and reporting. However, because implementation of CAP and Quality Improvement
requirements has not yet been sufficiently established, it is premature to conclude that there is
substantial compliance with EA 22 and EA 23.
As required by EA 24, based on the data about deaths, DBHDD has begun to develop and
implement a number of quality improvement initiatives designed to reduce mortality rates for
individuals with DD in community settings. Although it will be important to watch the progress
of these initiatives over time in order to gauge their impact, the projects certainly appear to be
appropriate and carefully considered.
As required by EA 25, the State thus far has published four annual reports on aggregate mortality
data. The Independent Reviewer has commented on those reports in either memorandum and/or
discussion formats. The reports are carefully prepared and the data appear reliable.
The FY 2017 report was issued on August 16, 2018. The Independent Reviewer offered
comments on this report at the Parties’ meeting held on September 12, 2018. It was
recommended that there be training offered to medical examiners and coroners on disability-
related issues and that there be documentation in the next report of the actions taken by DBHDD
to address the leading causes of death, including aspiration pneumonia and sepsis. Although the
rate of increase was reported as not statistically significant, the “crude mortality rate” increased
from 12.5 deaths per 1000 individuals in 2015 to 14.0 deaths per 1000 in 2016 to 16.4 deaths per
1000 individuals in 2017.
Recommended Finding: Based on the information provided by DBHDD, including the facts
documented in the most recent mortality report, it is recommended that the Quality Improvement
initiatives implemented to reduce mortality rates for individuals with DD be monitored further
before a compliance finding is recommended for EA 24. It is recommended that the State be
found in compliance with EA 25 since it has consistently published annual mortality reports.
Other Provisions Related to Individuals with DD:
Agreement Requirement: To benefit those individuals with DD who are at risk of

admission to a State Hospital, the SA also requires the State to create 400 HCBS Waivers
to prevent institutionalization. (SA III.A.2.b.i.) The EA requires the State to create an
31
additional 375 COMP Waivers and an additional 300 NOW Waivers for people with DD
on the waitlist to prevent their admission to an institutional facility. (EA 19) This results
in a grand total of 1,075 Waivers to be used to support people with DD in the community
to prevent institutionalization.
The State submitted the following accounting of its awarding of HCBS Waivers:
Fiscal Year Required Awarded Required COMP Awarded COMP

NOW NOW
FY16 100 242 100 324
FY17 100 264 125 292
FY18 100 358 150 352
Recommended Finding: Based on the above information, it is recommended that the State be
found in substantial compliance with EA 19. The State has awarded 1,832 HCBS Waivers since
FY 2016.
Agreement Requirement: The SA requires the State to evaluate the adequacy of

Waiver services annually, which may include conducting interviews with DD service
recipients, assessing services, collecting program recipient feedback via surveys, and
collecting provider performance data. The State is to assess compliance annually and is
to take appropriate action based on each assessment. (SA III.A.4.)
Agreement Requirement: The EA requires the State to provide to the United States
copies of the Waiver assurances it provides to CMS. The State is to conduct quality
reviews to be able to provide these assurances; the quality reviews are to be conducted on
a data-informed sample of individuals in each region and are to include face-to-face
interviews with individuals and staff, review of assessments and clinical records. As a
result of these reviews, the State is to develop and implement quality improvement
initiatives or continue implementing existing quality improvement initiatives. (EA 29)
The most recent Waiver application with performance measures was approved by the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on February 24, 2017 with an effective date of March 1,
2016.
DBHDD reported the following information in response to the Independent Reviewer’s request:
Quality Reviews (known to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) as
Evidence Reports) are due to CMS from the Department of Community Health (“DCH”)
prior to every Waiver renewal, which occurs every five years. DBHDD submitted a copy
of the Quality Review provided to CMS for the COMP Waiver on August 29, 2017. This
Quality Review included sampling by DBHDD and the ASO and was informed by
DBHDD incident management, mortality reviews, and indicators overseen by the
DBHDD Office of Health and Wellness.
32
DBHDD’s quality improvement initiatives are developed to address common findings

that span the entire system, including the Quality Review submitted to CMS, but not
solely from that document. Some quality improvement initiatives that are linked to the
findings in the Quality Review include:
1. The development and implementation of Intensive Support Coordination roles –

the purpose of this initiative is to provide additional and more comprehensive
support for individuals identified as having complex needs. This quality
improvement initiative was designed in response to Appendix G findings related
to care provision for Waiver participants with a higher level of need.
2. Expansion of the NOW and COMP Waivers to include reimbursement for
nutrition services in order to address complex dietary requirements and its
resulting health risks. DBHDD received CMS approval for the addition of a
Nutrition service under the 2017 NOW and COMP Waiver renewals. DBHDD is
working to monitor the impact of this new service for at risk individuals. This
quality improvement initiative was developed in response to Appendix C findings
regarding an adequate network of qualified providers and Appendix G findings
related to care provision for Waiver participants with a higher level of need.
3. Expansion of Waiver therapy services to provide increased maximum allocation
to support individuals with complex needs – DBHDD received CMS approval for
the expansion of therapy services, which include occupational, physical, and
speech/language therapies, under the 2017 NOW and COMP Waiver renewals.
This quality improvement initiative was developed in response to Appendix C
findings regarding an adequate network of qualified providers and Appendix G
findings related to care provision for Waiver participants with a higher level of
need.
4. Support and engagement of community physicians – DBHDD recognized a need
for physician-to-physician discussion involving the intricacies of treating
individuals with I/DD, along with the need to address barriers community
providers face in serving I/DD consumers. To address this issue, DBHDD
administered a survey to community physicians regarding treatment of individuals
with DD. This survey was first administered at the Health and Wellness
Physicians’ Summit in November 2017. This survey, which will be administered
at future events, works to gather information about the community physicians’
perspective on treating individuals with I/DD. Although results of the survey are
still being analyzed, DBHDD will utilize the findings to identify and mitigate
barriers to service delivery for I/DD individuals in the community. This quality
improvement initiative was designed in response to Appendix G findings related
to care provision for Waiver participants with a higher level of need.
5. The development and implementation of a stratified residential rate structure
designed to provide compensation commensurate with the assessed need of the
individual was approved through the 2017 NOW and COMP Waiver renewals.
Each reimbursement tier is linked to a recommended number of direct support
hours determined by level of need. The graduated reimbursement model was
designed in response to Appendix C findings regarding an adequate network of
33
qualified providers and Appendix G findings related to care provision for Waiver
participants with a higher level of need.
Recommended Finding: As demonstrated above, DBHDD utilizes the Quality Reviews

submitted to CMS to develop and implement quality improvement initiatives throughout the
I/DD system. It is recommended that DBHDD be found in substantial compliance with the
requirements outlined in provision EA 29.
Agreement Requirement: The EA requires the State to develop and implement a

strategic plan for provider recruitment and development based on the needs of the DD
population in the community and in the State Hospitals. The State is to use the plan to
identify and recruit community providers who can support individuals with DD and
complex needs. (EA 18)
DBHDD’s strategic plan for provider recruitment was completed on November 28, 2016 and
shared with the United States, the Amici and the Independent Reviewer for comment. The plan
was revised on March 31, 2017, June 30, 2017 and November 15, 2017. The plan is based on an
analysis of needed capacity. Six sub-populations of individuals either currently receiving
services or anticipated to require services within a three to five year period were identified. For
example, it was identified that 24 individuals (at that time) have been in a crisis home placement
for more than 30 days and need residential services; the situation still exists today.
DBHDD has identified two categories of providers to address in the provider recruitment plan:
residential service providers for individuals with complex medical or behavioral needs, and
community clinical services, such as occupational, speech and physical therapy, and other
critical services needed to support individuals in the community. 11 Interviews with Support
Coordination agencies and the Georgia Advocacy Office, conducted by Ms. Nuss, corroborated
those needs and described the negative impacts these needs are having on individuals in the
community and for those waiting to transition into the community.
Thus far, the State has been unsuccessful in attracting new residential providers to its DD
system. With regard to existing providers, on August 3, 2018, the Georgia Collaborative ASO
website revealed the following numbers of existing clinical providers accepting new referrals:
• Behavioral support consultation = 56,
• CRA = 2,
• Nursing services = 17,
• Occupational therapy = 4,
• Physical therapy = 5, and
• Speech therapy = 6.
These figures appear to be inadequate to address existing residential needs, especially for people
with complex behavioral problems who are living in crisis homes. Moreover, a review of the
provider enrollment process available through the ASO website describes a process that requires,
11 ADA Settlement Extension Agreement Parties Meeting Presentation by DBHDD, 4/13/18, p. 135.
34
at a minimum, seven months to successfully enroll in one of the Home and Community-Based
Services Waiver programs.
The provider plan indicates that an Enterprise workgroup has been established to evaluate
individual support profiles and work to address gaps in reimbursable services with final
recommendations from the workgroup due in May 2018. The Independent Reviewer has not yet
received a copy of these recommendations.
Recommended Finding: The critical shortage of new residential providers, as well as qualified
clinicians, including those with expertise in behavioral supports, has not been addressed through
implementation of the Provider Recruitment Plan. A finding of noncompliance is recommended.
DBHDD needs to fully develop and implement a robust and enterprise-wide provider recruitment
plan in the identified provider categories. If substantial compliance is to be recommended, this
recruitment plan should result in a demonstrable increase in clinical provider enrollment, relative
to the service population numbers and identified needs.
Agreement Requirement: The SA requires the State to create a program to educate

judges and law enforcement officials about community services and supports available to
people with DD and forensic status. (SA III.A.3.a.) The State is to include individuals
with DD and forensic status in the Target Population if a court finds that community
placement is appropriate. (SA III.A.3.b.)
Education of the Courts has continued. DBHDD provided a list of educational sessions
conducted to date in FY 2018.
There has been the continuous inclusion of individuals with DD and forensic status in the
planning and implementation of transitions from State Hospitals.

with these obligations and that these important educational and transition efforts continue.
Provisions Related to Individuals with Mental Illness
Throughout the course of the Settlement Agreement and its Extension, there have been
significant reforms in the scope and accessibility of community-based supports for individuals
with SPMI. During the fact-finding period for this report, numerous sources, particularly
attorneys for indigent clients with SPMI, commented on the availability and importance of
community-based supports. The Independent Reviewer and her consultants recognize and
applaud the substantial commitment of time, energy and financial resources invested by the
State. Undoubtedly, there have been important accomplishments.
At this stage of the Settlement Agreement, it is critical to build on the accomplishments to date
and to continue to strengthen the opportunities for stability and independence for all members of
the Target Population, most especially those who are confined to institutions or at risk of being
so. As discussed below, the outreach to certain members of the Target Population is not uniform,
35
consistent or complete. As a result, key requirements remain with recommendations for findings
of noncompliance.
It must be emphasized that the requirement that the State have the capacity to provide Supported
Housing to any of the 9,000 people in the Target Population with an assessed need for such
support has not been met. DBHDD has discussed its plans for complying with this obligation but
it has not yet done so. The delays in outreach to members of the Target Population and the
restrictive definitions employed to determine eligibility for an assessed need for housing must be
addressed if compliance is to be recommended.
Substantial compliance with these agreed-upon provisions is attainable, if the measures set out at
the end of this report were implemented.
It must also be noted that the data provided for this report were often contradictory and, thus,
confusing. Since FY 2012, the Georgia Housing Voucher and Bridge Funding Program
Summary has been the primary source document for the Independent Reviewer’s report.
Statistical information provided outside of that Program Summary has not been verified.
Supported Housing and Bridge Funding
The strength of Georgia’s implementation of the Settlement Agreement obligations pertaining to

Supported Housing is the continued availability of resources in the Georgia Housing Voucher
Program (GHVP) and in Bridge Funding for recipients of Supported Housing. The State has
relied on an annual appropriation as well as funds from turnover (funding for vouchers that
becomes available when someone vacates their unit). The State has had the opportunity to use
other subsidies and vouchers for new referrals.
DCA and DBHDD have formed a working partnership vital to maximizing and expanding
resources for individuals in the Target Population. DBHDD Regional Office staff, selected
service providers and Community Service Boards (CSBs) have demonstrated a willingness to
conduct housing outreach and make housing referrals.
During the course of the Agreement, DCA secured a Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) preference
for individuals in the Target Population for their Public Housing Authority “balance of state”
rental assistance program. DCA also sought HUD 811 funds for program rental assistance (PRA)
for individuals with disabilities, including individuals in the Target Population in 2012 and
sought HUD Mainstream Voucher rental assistance resources through a HUD competition in
2018 12. DBHDD sought an agreement with the Atlanta Housing Authority in 2015 that became
effective in 2017.
Agreement Requirement: The SA and EA require the State to have the capacity to
provide Supported Housing to any of the approximately 9,000 persons with SPMI in the
Target Population who need such support. (SA III.B.2.c.ii. (A); see also EA 30.
Supported Housing may be funded by the State; for example, through DBHDD and its
Georgia Housing Voucher Program (GHVP) or through the Georgia Department of
12
It was recently announced that Georgia has received 135 Mainstream vouchers.
36
Community Affairs (DCA)) or by the federal government; for example, through the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development and its Section 8 program. (SA
III.B.2.c.ii.(A)
Agreement Requirement: The SA requires the State to provide Bridge Funding for up
to 1,800 individuals with SPMI in the Target Population. (SA III.B.2.c.ii.(C). Bridge
Funding includes money for security deposits, household necessities, living expenses,
and other supports during the time the person is becoming eligible for federal disability or
other supplemental income. (SA III. B.2.c.i.(C); see also EA 31.) Funding for this
program would come exclusively from the State. The EA requires the State to provide
Bridge Funding for an additional 600 individuals, for a grand total of 2,400 individuals
with SPMI in the Target Population (EA 32, 33)
The State continues to fund and administer the GHVP, including allocating Bridge Funding.
Bridge Funding was provided to 1,461 participants in FY 2018, a 25 percent increase over FY
2017 and well above the Extension Agreement’s requirement. However, the total expenditure for
Bridge Funding was $2,150,600, approximately 30% less than FY 2016 and 40% lower than FY
2017. The average "bridge" cost per participant is $1,211, a reduction of 50% from the previous
year. Spending patterns remained the same, with lower amounts attributed to each category.
Furnishings and first and second month rent account for 24% of this cost and provider fees
account for 16% of the expenditures. The remaining funds were allocated for household items,
food, transportation, medication, moving expenses, utility and security deposits and other
expenses.
Agreement Requirement: By June 30, 2016, the State shall provide GHVP vouchers for
an additional 358 individuals in the Target Population. (EA 34)
By June 30, 2017, the State shall provide GHVP vouchers for at least an additional 275
individuals in the Target Population. (EA 35)
At the end of June 2018, there were 2,405 individuals living in Supported Housing with a GHV.
An additional 469 individuals had a Notice to Proceed.
GHVP Assistance 6/30/15 6/30/16 6/30/17 6/30/18

Individuals with a Notice to Proceed 236 321 360 469
Individuals with a signed lease 1,623 1,924 2,432 2,405
Recommended Finding: It is very clear that the State has not yet achieved the capacity to serve
the approximately 9,000 people in the Target Population who need Supported Housing. Current
capacity, even with generous assumptions, is at about half of the 9,000 figure set out in both the
SA and EA. A finding of substantial compliance is recommended for the narrower obligations
regarding Georgia Housing Vouchers and Bridge Funding required by EA 31 through 35.
Agreement Requirement: Per the SA, Supported Housing is: (a) integrated permanent
housing with tenancy rights; (b) linked with flexible community-based services,
37
including psycho-social supports, that are available to individuals when they need them,
but are not mandated as a condition of tenancy. (SA III.B.2.c.i.; see also EA 36)
The State is challenged with linkage to flexible services. Based on DBHDD’s most recent report,
approximately 28% (669/2405) of the individuals living in Supported Housing units were not
engaged in services. A review of other states suggests the number is generally in the 10% range.
The high number of individuals living in housing but not receiving services may be an indication
that staff are either not applying well tested strategies, including assertive outreach techniques
and interventions for engaging individuals, and/or staff are not skilled in those techniques. It
also could be related to DBHDD not monitoring and holding providers accountable or
incentivizing providers for housing stability. Effective linkage requires effective engagement,
monitoring and provision of incentives. Reportedly, DBHDD has revised its policy to require a
“health and safety check-in” once a month, a widely used method to engage individuals and
ensure their safety and wellbeing. This policy was not in effect during the Settlement Agreement
period to date and would require monitoring to determine if it is being carried out as a linkage to
flexible services.
Recommended Finding: A finding of compliance with Provision 36 cannot be recommended
because of clear evidence of ineffective linkage and, as discussed further below, because
Supported Housing is not yet being made available to anyone in the Target Population.
Agreement Requirement: To satisfy the “integrated” requirement, the SA requires that
at least half of the Supported Housing units be either scattered-site housing or apartments
clustered in a single building with no more than 20 percent of the units in one building
occupied by people in the Target Population. (SA III.B.2.c.i.(A).; see also EA 37) The
SA requires that 60 percent of Supported Housing be two-bedroom units and the other 40
percent be one-bedroom units. (SA III.B.2.c.i.(B).)
The State has consistently complied with the requirements regarding scattered-site locations.
DBHDD reported that, in FY 2018, 78% of housing was scattered site (1864/2405), 22% above
the minimum standard; this is a 13% decrease from FY 2017 when 2,029 individuals were living
in scattered site housing. A review of a report on locations and on rental payments confirms
earlier reports that housing is generally scattered site. However, it should be noted, there are
large disbursements to three different rental companies that raise the question of DBHDD staff
and their contractors utilizing these rental properties in excess of this requirement.
Recommended Finding: The State is in substantial compliance with the scattered site
requirements in EA 37.
Agreement Requirement: Per the SA and the EA, there are five sub-groups of people
with SPMI within the Target Population: (1) those currently being served in the State
Hospitals; (2) those who are frequently readmitted to the State Hospitals; (3) those who
are frequently seen in Emergency Rooms; (4) those who are chronically homeless; and
(5) those who are being released from jails or prisons. (SA III.B.1.a.; see also, EA 30)
Individuals in the Target Population need not be currently receiving services from
DBHDD in order to be eligible to receive Supported Housing. (EA 36) The Target
38
Population includes individuals in these five sub-groups who have a co-occurring

condition such as a substance use disorder or a traumatic brain injury. (SA III.B.1.d; see
also EA 30) The Target Population also includes individuals with SPMI and forensic
status in the care of DBHDD in a State Hospital where a court has determined that
community services are appropriate. (SA III.B.1.b.; see also EA 30) The EA requires the
State to implement procedures to refer individuals with SPMI in the Target Population to
Supported Housing if the need is identified at the time of discharge from a State Hospital,
jail, prison, Emergency Room, or homeless shelter. (EA 40)
The State’s provision of housing with supports has enabled individuals with SPMI, and a smaller
subset of individuals with a MH/DD diagnosis, to experience stabilization and membership in
their communities. The importance of Supported Housing cannot be overstated on either an
individual or systemic level. However, as discussed further below, not every subgroup in the
Target Population has reliable access to these resources.
DBHDD has not successfully provided assistance to individuals in the Target Population who are
being discharged from institutions or who are frequently seen in emergency rooms. DBHDD
does not employ all the necessary strategies 13 that can be applied for this purpose with this
Target Population. For example, individuals often get released from prison or jail with few
resources and no place to live or individuals return frequently to emergency rooms when they are
homeless or unstably housed. Three years ago, there was an attempt to provide such assistance in
Atlanta with PATH taking referrals of individuals who were homeless and hospitalized at
Georgia Regional Hospital Atlanta (GRHA). As discussed in previous reports, this process only
worked for approximately 10% of the individuals referred because the steps needed to ensure this
was done were not added into the process. Other states have shown remarkable success when the
process was fully understood and carried out; transitional or bridge support is considered
standard practice today. For example, a recent review of a similar program in North Carolina
demonstrated a success rate of 94% for individuals accessing permanent housing over a two-year
period. DBHDD has reported that it is making plans to provide such assistance. However, these
efforts are in the early stages and have not progressed sufficiently for the purposes of the present
review.
It is also of concern to report that the State has not been making much progress in actually
linking people to Supported Housing in recent months. For example, the State has been reporting
that the net number of GHVP slots utilized has been declining each month in 2018: January-
2,628; February-2,582; March-2,534; April-2,511; May-2,482; June-2,453 and July-2,405. This
is a steady decline each month and does not reflect the kind of positive movement one would
expect as the Parties approached the anticipated compliance date set out in the Extension
Agreement.
Recommended Finding: Based on the above information, the State cannot be recommended for
substantial compliance with EA 40 because implementation of procedures to refer individuals
13
It is standard practice today to use critical time intervention or other strategies to provide intensive assistance to
individuals during transition from jails, prisons, homelessness and hospital discharge.
39
with SPMI to Supported Housing at the time of discharge from jails, prison, emergency rooms is
not systemic and aspects of the procedures are seriously flawed.
Agreement Requirement: The EA requires the State to implement a Memorandum of
Agreement between DBHDD and DCA, with the following six elements: (a) a unified
referral strategy regarding housing options at the point of referral; (b) a statewide
determination of need, with a tool, an advisory committee, a training curriculum, training
and certifying of assessors, and analyzing and reporting statewide data; (c) maximizing
GHVP; (d) housing choice voucher tenant selection preferences granted by HUD; (e)
effective utilization of available housing resources; and (f) coordination of state resources
and agencies. (EA 39)
The implementation of the GHVP has highlighted the strong and productive relationship between
DBHDD and its sister agency, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). A Memorandum
of Agreement and the establishment of a liaison position between the two agencies have
underscored this collaboration. DCA has continued to be an active partner in the discussions
about the Settlement and Extension Agreements’ obligations and has been receptive to
recommendations for streamlining and expediting processes. The working relationship between
these two agencies is a major strength.
The Memorandum of Agreement between the two agencies addressed the obligations included in
the Extension Agreement, but as discussed below, it has not yet been fully implemented as
required by the EA.
As reported in February 2018, the unified referral strategy it is not yet fully implemented for
“anyone in the Target Population” to have access to the (unified) referral process and then access
to housing (39.a.). DCA and DBHDD are making a concerted effort to explore other resources
beyond the GHVP so that the GHVP can be the last resort for individuals not eligible for other
resources. Their performance falls short related both to capacity and to the ability to have
reached stakeholders and individuals in the Target Population.
The statewide determination of need process (39.b.) is underway but the determination of need
process which is now the gateway into Supported Housing for most individuals is still not
available to “anyone” in the Target Population. To be available to “anyone,” individuals in all
the sub-populations at least would have to have the potential to ask for and/or have someone ask
them to complete the survey. This is not yet possible.
DBHDD recently changed the required focus of the advisory committee to oversee the needs
assessment (39.b.). Based on interviews with advisory committee members, it is unclear as to
whether the advisory committee serves this purpose.
Housing Outreach Coordinators (HOCs) have begun completing the tool to assess need in
“select” jails and prisons and in emergency rooms. Based on information obtained through
interviews with eleven Housing Outreach Coordinators (the twelfth person resigned and did not
keep the scheduled interview appointment), they have made attempts primarily by going to the
front desk, asking to speak to staff (and often leaving their business card), in a subset of the
facilities, asking for meetings and trying to establish contact through other mental health
40
representatives who work closely with law enforcement or with hospital staff. The success to
date using these methods is mixed. Housing Outreach Coordinators report not getting any
response from some of the facilities. In some situations, they have been able to arrange meetings
to discuss benefits of the programs or to be invited to come to the facility to interview someone
about to be discharged.
These methods of contact are quite laborious and often not fruitful in establishing the level and
type of relationship that will result in referrals. Because the HOCs are disconnected from the
processes that lead to someone getting housing, it is likely the referrals will decline overtime, if
facility personnel do not see rapid results or any results at all.
Eleven of the twelve funded HOC positions were filled by April 2018 and one position was filled
in June 2018. Two Housing Outreach Coordinators have already resigned and supervisors were
required to fill in. One replacement since has been hired. Finally, and very significantly, the
target areas served by these 12 HOCs don’t cover the entire state. Although this is an action that
has potential value, outreach efforts to date have been limited or incomplete. As referenced
earlier, even when fully implemented, this outreach will not be available to all 159 counties in
Georgia. Under the terms of the contract awards, outreach is targeted to 98 counties or 62% of
the entire state.
Provision (39.c.) of the EA requires that the GHVP be maximized. Through a review process
developed at DCA, if an individual meets requirements for another funding source for Supported
Housing, such as a HCV, HUD Shelter Plus Care (rental assistance for individuals who are
homeless), VASH, 811, etc., they are referred to the other program, thus freeing up GHVs for
individuals not eligible for the other resources. Even though this is occurring, the process for
this review is not automated, requiring an extra review step for staff to determine eligibility. As a
result, potential placements are slowed down. To the extent that other funding sources are
utilized before approving the use of the GHV, the State has complied with the intent of this
provision. However, it must be noted that over 430 GHVs from FY 2018 remain unused at the
time of this report so, in that sense, they have not been maximized.
Regarding 39.d., the housing choice tenant selection preference obtained through the efforts of
the United States Department of Justice in 2012 and renewed in 2015 is set to expire at the end
of the Settlement Agreement. While this initiative held great promise, the total number of
individuals transitioned to the Housing Choice Voucher Program was 319 as of April 2018. (The
reporting of this number has been inconsistent over time but, after review of all the data provided
by DBHDD for this reviewer, it appears to be the most accurate number.) In 2012, DCA
committed to allocating 100 vouchers in FY 2012 and 500 vouchers in each of FY 2013, 2014
and 2015 for persons covered by the Settlement Agreement. DCA obtained approval from HUD
on May 3, 2012 to set these specific preferences.
Effective utilization of available housing resources (such as Section 811 and public housing
authorities) is required (39.e.) as part of the Memorandum of Agreement between DCA and
DBHDD. This provision is key to the State’s ability to expand capacity and meet demands for
new housing. The HUD Project Rental Assistance was first funded in 2012. Georgia was one of
the first thirteen states in the country to receive an award for this new program. DCA received
41
$4.27 million to cover the costs for the extended use agreements for rental assistance for 134
units. Georgia listed two target populations in their application, individuals who qualify in this
Settlement Agreement’s Target Population and individuals who qualify under the State’s Money
Follows the Person program. DBHDD reports 100 of these units are to be utilized by the Target
Population. To date, 44 individuals in the Target Population have been approved for rental
assistance in this program. The program is challenging to administer and Georgia and other
states have made some adjustments, with HUD approval, for how funds will be used. However,
the plain fact is that the program is under-utilized.
As referenced earlier, the data provided about capacity have been contradictory and, therefore,
the actual capacity is unclear. It is estimated that there is roughly a current capacity for
approximately 4500-4600 individuals. This is approximately half of what is required by the SA
and EA. Furthermore, this estimated capacity falls far short of the numbers of units/ vouchers
that could be utilized as projected by the Technical Assistance Collaborative 14 in their 2014
report on potential resources for expanding capacity. TAC projected the total capacity could
reach 6,984 slots/units/vouchers, if agreements were in place for utilization of current and
projected vouchers and subsidies for the Target Population across a range of state and local
programs and funding sources. While it is highly unlikely every housing program will meet its
potential, the lack of state and local agreements for utilization of resources limits the potential
capacity for the Target Population.
As stated above, the coordination of available state resources and state agencies is important. It
is also required as an action step in the Memorandum of Agreement (39.f.).
Recommended Findings: There has only been minimal progress since the requirements for the
Memorandum of Agreement were reviewed and reported on in March 2018. As such, the State
is not yet recommended as in compliance with this obligation. Specifically, the unified referral
strategy (39.a.) is not available for “anyone” in the Target Population and the determination of
need is not statewide (39.b.). There is also not yet an effective utilization of housing resources as
listed in the Settlement Agreement (39.e.) and coordination with available state resources and
state agencies, while in progress, is not yielding sufficient benefits (39.f.). There has been
substantial compliance with the requirement to use the GHVP only after other funding sources
are explored (39.c.) and the Housing Choice Voucher Tenant Selection preferences are in effect
through the life of the Settlement Agreement. (39.d.)
Agreement Requirement: The SA and EA require the State to have the capacity to
provide Supported Housing to any of the approximately 9,000 persons with SPMI in the
Target Population who need such support. (SA III.B.2.c.ii. (A); see also EA 30. The EA
modified this to be “an assessed need for such support.” EA 38) Supported Housing may
be funded by the State; for example, through DBHDD and its Georgia Housing Voucher
Program (GHVP) or through the Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA)) or
by the federal government; for example, through the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development and its Section 8 program. (SA III.B.2.c.ii.(A)
14
K. Martone, M. Herb and P. Holland. Georgia Housing Capacity Report submitted to the Georgia Department of
Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities, June 2014.
42
Agreement Requirement: The State shall implement procedures that enable individuals
with SPMI in the Target Population to be referred to Supported Housing if the need is
identified at the time of discharge from a State Hospital, jail, prison, emergency room, or
homeless shelter. (EA 40). For purposes of Paragraphs 31 to 40, the “Target Population”
includes the approximately 9,000 individuals with SPMI who are currently being served
in State Hospitals, who are frequently readmitted to the State Hospitals, who are
frequently seen in emergency rooms, who are chronically homeless, and/or who are being
released from jails or prisons. The Target Population also includes individuals with SPMI
and forensic status in the care of DBHDD in the State Hospitals, if the relevant court
finds that community services are appropriate, and individuals with SPMI and a co-
occurring condition, such as substance abuse disorders or traumatic brain injuries. (EA
30)
At this point in time, there are certain obligations, referenced above, where implementation
continues to fall significantly short of the language embodied in the Settlement Agreement and
its Extension Agreement.
First, it is recognized that the State has worked continuously over the past four years to identify
individuals in need of Supported Housing-- first through Phase I, a pilot to test the process, then
following development of new policies and processes, Phase II, which is ongoing. However, as
reported consistently in the annual reviews completed by the Independent Reviewer and her
housing consultant, this process has failed to identify individuals in need across all the sub-
populations in the Target Population. DBHDD defined the criteria used for identifying each sub-
population. Likewise, the protocols developed by DBHDD do not provide timely and complete
action steps for standard referral processes for this Target Population. This is a huge undertaking
and, as stated by DBHDD staff, “change takes time.”
Over the course of the Agreement, most individuals receiving Supported Housing were
previously homeless (54%). The number of individuals moving from the State Hospital has
remained in the range of 11%; individuals exiting jails or prison average around 5% of the total
number of individuals placed in Supported Housing.
As illustrated in the recent analysis completed by Dr. Gouse in her review of discharges from the
forensic units of State Hospitals, Supported Housing was provided to only four individuals in
2017 and two individuals through June 30 in 2018. Most individuals discharged from forensic
units are recommended by the Hospital for Community Integration Homes (CIHs); that is the
option thus approved by the courts. While this is certainly appropriate for many individuals from
a risk perspective, there are a number of individuals who could live in a less supervised setting
with additional wrap around services and supports, but this is typically not viewed as a viable
option as an initial placement from the Hospital. As a result, the overreliance upon CIHs results
in unnecessarily long extended Hospital stays for some individuals because of the lengthy wait
list. In addition, even when the Court approves release, there are challenges with finding
providers willing to accept some individuals and the lack of specific timeframes for completion
of referral packets, interviews with providers, and provider response to referrals adds to the
longer length of stay.
43
In terms of referrals from state prisons, DBHDD has stated, and the HOCs have confirmed, that
referrals from prisons have been limited to those inmates being released after incarceration for
sex offenses. DBHDD has documented that only two individuals released from prison have
received Supported Housing.
There has been no reliable data provided regarding referrals of individuals frequently seen in
emergency rooms.
Furthermore, as documented in the reports by Dr. Gouse, adults leaving the State Hospitals are
rarely discharged to Supported Housing. Although discharges to shelters have decreased
significantly since February 2016, when a policy change was issued, the quarterly review of
hospital discharges indicated that Supported Housing is not a principal option for individuals
who lack families, friends or their own residential resources.
DBHDD has issued plans and timelines for increasing referrals to Supported Housing for
individuals leaving jails, prisons and State Hospitals. However, the timeliness for
implementation of these plans largely extends beyond the anticipated date for the completion of
the Agreements.
Second, with a single exception, the advocates and staff who work in the field have cited the lack
of available affordable rental housing as a major challenge. Housing must be available if
capacity is to be realized. Building capacity begins with determining what affordable stock is
available and making a plan to increase it. DBHDD recently reported they had no problems with
capacity.
In Georgia, there are only 38 available rental homes/apartment units per 100 renter households
whose income is at 30% of area median income. There are only 55 affordable and available
homes per 100 renter households for individuals at 50% of the area median income 15. Even with
a rental subsidy, individuals whose income is only approximately $750 per month (SSI) will
have difficulty finding housing in most Georgia rental markets. SSI is only 21% of the area
median income in Georgia 16. DBHDD reports DCA acknowledges this need as well as the
scarcity of available decent affordable rental units for the Target Population, which in turn
affects capacity.
Most affordable housing in Georgia is already occupied and/or available to a wider population of
individuals and families with low incomes that qualify them for the HCV program and the
LIHTC program or to individuals who qualify for support from categorical programs such as
VASH, HOPWA, ESG and re-entry programs. Occupancy rates run very high. The state cannot
simply count the number of slots/ subsidies for these groups and report this as capacity.
15
The Georgia Housing Profile. The Gap Report: National Low income Housing Coalition, Washington D.C. (June
26, 2018)
16
Priced Out: The Housing Crisis for People with Disabilities. . The Technical Assistance Collaborative, Boston
Massachusetts. (2017)
44
Capacity in programs that don’t typically expand significantly will also rely on turnover for new
referrals.
Beyond the broader question of increasing availability, there is a need to develop a pipeline of
affordable housing, where possible, dedicated in whole or part to the Target Population. In
Georgia, this includes the GHVP, 811 and the HCV units available through the time limited
preference. It also includes the HUD McKinney Shelter Plus Care and HUD (disability)
Mainstream Vouchers. There are written agreements and eligibility criteria for the target
populations for these programs. DBHDD and DCA have made limited progress with affordable
housing slots/vouchers under DCA control and even less progress accessing resources identified
as needed for Supported Housing through the unified referral process.
These two areas of inadequate implementation must be addressed before there can be a
recommendation of substantial compliance made to the Court.
Provisions Applicable to Individuals with DD and/or SPMI
Quality Management
There is continuing, very promising, evidence that DBHDD has made significant strides in
establishing a reliable and responsive Quality Management system.
In preparation for this report, there were discussions with the staff working on Quality
Management strategies for DBHDD. Reports and details about current initiatives were examined
through the documentation made available for review. Of particular merit are the reports being
prepared to analyze performance outcomes, especially in the areas for health-related risks, and
the tools being designed for use by practitioners in community-based settings.
The strength of DBHDD’s Quality Management system continues to emerge. Its evaluative
strategies are invaluable as a safeguard to the many accomplishments being designed and
implemented as part of the systemic reform underway in Georgia.
45
Concluding Comments
In preparing this report, it has been strikingly evident that a number of significant reforms have
either been accomplished or initiated in the restructuring of Georgia’s systems of support for
individuals with DD and SPMI. Across the span of nearly eight years, there has been a
substantial investment of resources, both human and financial, in developing and sustaining
community-based alternatives to institutionalization. The Independent Reviewer and her subject
matter consultants acknowledge and appreciate the scope of these efforts.
Systemic reforms always present challenges. At this time, the challenges remaining under the
provisions of the Settlement Agreement and its Extension appear to fall into a discrete number of
categories: Supported Housing, supports for individuals at higher risk due to maladaptive
behaviors or health conditions, and completing the strength of the safeguards that will help
protect individuals from harm and maximize opportunities for meaningful community
integration.
There is additional evidence that would be very instrumental towards reaching substantial
compliance in areas that have been recommended for noncompliance. This supplemental
documentation includes:
Supported Housing
• Evidence that all jails, prisons and emergency rooms statewide have knowledge of the
availability of Supported Housing and how to access it. There should be documentation
of contacts with all jails, prisons and emergency rooms statewide. The number of
individuals referred to Supported Housing from each subset of the Target Population
should demonstrate that access to Supported Housing is available statewide.
• Evidence of the re-examination and redefinition of the Housing Outreach Coordinators’
role to ensure seamless referrals to Supported Housing.
• Evidence of verification that the monthly wellness case management checks have been
completed for those individuals with SPMI who have a Housing Voucher but are without
services.
• Evidence of the re-examination and any corrective action of the current processes that
constrain referral, by definition or otherwise, to Supported Housing.
• Evidence of the implementation of strategic planning to increase the housing stock
available for Supported Housing.
• Evidence that DBHDD and DCA are working with PHAs to apply for additional HUD
Mainstream Vouchers in 2018 and will work with PHAs and agencies with VASH and
HOPWA vouchers to provide greater access to housing with support.
Programmatic Supports for Individuals with DD
• Evidence that the STAR requests are reviewed and acted upon within a maximum of 30
days from receipt,
• Evidence that the availability of providers and provider agencies with expertise is
increased statewide.
46
• Evidence that the crisis-restructuring plan is implemented and that changes are effective
in managing crises and avoiding institutionalization.
Systemic Safeguards
• Evidence that training in the principles of community integration continues to occur.

• Evidence that the caseloads for Support Coordinators meet the requirements of the
Extension Agreement.
• Evidence that the CRMCs review all investigations with deficient practices within 30
days of completion of the investigation.
• Evidence that notices of CAPS are issued within five business days of CMRC review.
• Evidence of sanctions against providers that do not comply with timelines and mandated
corrective actions.
• Evidence of a moratorium on providers with recurrent or notably deficient practices.
The opportunity to discuss these recommendations would be welcomed.
______________/s/________________
Elizabeth Jones, Independent Reviewer
September 19, 2018
47
Independent Review: Support Coordination, Provider Recruitment and Quality

Improvement
Submitted by Laura Nuss

August 4, 2018
1
Purpose
To assess the state of Georgia’s compliance with the Extension Agreement dated May 16, 2016;
specifically, the obligations related to the provision of support coordination (16 a.-g.), provider
recruitment efforts (18) and quality improvement initiatives (24) as of August 4, 2018.
Methodology
The following activities and document reviews were part of the evaluation of support
coordination for this report:
• July 19, 2018: Meeting with DBHDD officials to discuss specific support coordination
provisions found in the Settlement Agreement. Present for this meeting included: Ronald
Wakefield, DD Division Director; Amy Howell, Assistant Commissioner and General
Counsel; Catherine Ivy, Office of Waiver Services; Robert Bell, Director of Community
Support; Joelle Butler, Support Coordination Manager; and Evelyn Harris, Settlement
Agreement Coordinator.
• July 19, 2018: Meeting with DBHDD officials to discuss quality improvement initiatives.
Present for this meeting included: Ron Wakefield; Amy Howell; Catherine Ivy; Melissa
Sperbeck, Director, Division of Performance Management and Quality Improvement; J.
R. Gravitt, Office of Performance Analysis; and Virginia Sizemore, Office of Quality
Improvement.
• July 20, 2018: Site Visit at a GCSS crisis respite home and interviews with Intensive
Support Coordinators representing two individuals who reside at this home.
• July 23, 2018: Phone call with Georgia Advocacy Office staff Devon Orland, Renee
Pruitt and Joe Sarra.
• July 26 – 30, 2018: Individual phone calls with the Executive Directors of six of the
seven Support Coordination Agencies (SCAs): Twana King, GA Support Services;
Chianti Davis, The Columbus Organization; Tammy Carroll, Benchmark Human
Services; Sharon Higgins, CareStar; Randy Moore, Compass Coordination, Inc.; and,
Michelle Schwartz, Creative Consulting Services.
The following documents were reviewed:
• ADA Settlement Extension Agreement Parties Meeting PowerPoint, DBHDD, dated
April 13, 2018.
• DBHDD Support Coordination Performance Report, DBHDD, June 30, 2018.
• Orientation to PMQI, Division of Performance Management and Quality Improvement
Presentation, DBHDD, July 19, 2018.
• Notification of Support Coordination Agencies (CIRs), data provided by DBHDD dated
June 28, 2018 for the period of March 16, 2018 – June 15, 2018.
• Support Coordination Record Review (SCRR) Tool, The Georgia Collaborative ASO.
• ISP QA Checklist Findings Tool, The Georgia Collaborative ASO, 05/05/2015.
• DBHDD Individual Service Plan Quality Assurance Tool, January 1, 2018.
• Support Coordination Interview Tool, The Georgia Collaborative ASO, 07/01/2018.
• Georgia Collaborative ASO Quality Enhancement Provider Review Final Assessment
Report, Professional Case Management, Review Period 6/18/2017 – 6/17/2018.
2
• Georgia Collaborative ASO Quality Enhancement Provider Review Final Assessment

Report, CareStar Inc., Review Period 12/04/2016 – 12/03/2017.
• Untitled and undated statement asserting compliance with provision 16(d) citing ASO
performance review results of 98% in FY 18 without supporting documentation provided
as an attachment via email on July 23, 2018.
• Copy of SC-ISC Caseload Report by Agency, dated 06/30/2018.
• Deliverable 24 DBHDD evidence dated June 28, 2018.
• Attachment A: IDD Quality Improvement Projects, Department of Justice deliverable 24
update 06/27/2018.
• DBHDD Response to Item #2 re: FY 18 Community Quality Improvement Plan, page 9.
• DD Quality Improvement Quarterly Meeting Minutes, 06/27/2018.
• The Georgia Collaborative ASO, Quality Management Annual Report FY 2017.
https://s18637.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/FY-2017-Quality-Management-
Annual-Report-Final.pdf
• Outcome Evaluation: “Recognize, Refer, and Act” Model, 02-435, dated January 19,
2018.
• Service Change/Technical Assistance Requests (STARs), Division of Developmental
Disabilities presentation, March 2018
https://dbhdd.georgia.gov/sites/dbhdd.georgia.gov/files/imported/DBHDD/Providers/Too
lkit/Understanding%20the%20STAR%20Process-march2018.pdf.
• 2016 Annual Mortality Report, NOW and COMP Waiver, GA DBHDD, August 22, 2017
https://dbhdd.georgia.gov/documents/mortality-reports.
• Georgia Collaborative ASO Provider Enrollment.
https://www.georgiacollaborative.com/providers/intellectual-developmental-disabilities-
services/.
Systemic Strengths
DBHDD has developed and implemented comprehensive policies and procedures governing the
delivery of support coordination and intensive support coordination services. Georgia also
benefits from stable and strong leadership in both state and support coordination agency
positions. Support Coordination Agencies report that regular meetings with the state leadership
have been positive and beneficial to their shared mission.
DBHDD also benefits from its organizational capacity in data analysis and reporting.
Performance reporting continues to expand to include additional performance measures and adds
additional elements to standard performance analysis to refine the significance of those
measures.
Individual Support Coordination Agency performance is strong in meeting policy expectations
for face-to-face visits and increases as individual’s needs and age increase. The availability of
clinical supervision in intensive support coordination has been evident during all site visits.
DBHDD also benefits from a robust Administrative Service Organization (ASO) that carries out
regular Person-Centered Reviews and Quality Enhancement Provider Reviews. The ASO
provides comprehensive reports on its findings that can inform DBHDD about support
3
coordination, provider and systemic performance and that can guide on-going quality
improvement efforts.
16.a.: Noncompliance
DBHDD revised and implemented the roles and responsibilities of support coordination
beginning in 2016 and has continued to evolve its methods of state monitoring and performance
oversight. DBHDD utilizes several methods to routinely monitor the performance of support
coordination services.
DBHDD Policy, Reporting Requirements for Support Coordination, 02-437, requires that
Support Coordination agencies submit performance reports to DBHDD on a monthly basis. The
policy requires that the report include:
1. Caseload size by Support Coordinator;
2. Number of ISPs approved by the DBHDD Field Office within the past month;
3. Participant Face-to-Face Visit Requirements Performance;
4. Number of Quality Outcome Measures Reviews Completed/ number due per policy
requirements.
These same performance metrics can be independently pulled from the Consumer Information
System by DBHDD.
DBHDD also utilizes its Administrative Service Organization (ASO), The Georgia Collaborative
ASO, to conduct quarterly Person-Centered Reviews (PCRs) on a random sample of HCBS
waiver recipients. “The purpose of the PCR is to assess the individual’s quality of life as well as
the effectiveness of and satisfaction individuals have with the service delivery system.” 1 The
PCR includes, but is not limited to, the completion of the Individual Service Plan Quality
Assurance Checklist (ISP QA), the Support Coordinator Record Review (SCRR) and Support
Coordinator Interview (SCI). The ASO also conducts Quality Enhancement Provider Reviews
(QEPRs) on a sample of HCBS providers each year, a review of the provider agency’s systems
and practices. Two Support Coordination Agencies are subject to QEPRs. DBHDD provided
two QEPR reports completed in FY 18 for CareStar Inc. and Professional Case Management as
evidence of these reviews.
Utilizing these monitoring methods, findings for each of the elements prescribed in 16 a. are
provided below.
ISP Development
The DBHDD Support Coordination Performance Report, dated June 30, 2018, reports on ISP
performance metrics for the first time, drawing from data reported from the ASO ISP QA
Checklist completed between January 1, 2018 and March 31, 2018 (n = 231). The ISP QA
Checklist evaluates the ISP on 12 different sections of the ISP and each section is divided by
1
The Georgia Collaborative ASO FY 17 Quality Management Annual Report, p. 70.
4
four expectations. Each section is then evaluated on whether each expectation is addressed on a
scale of zero to four. DBHDD considers a rating of three or four expectations met in each section
as a positive result. Using this methodology, all Support Coordination Agencies had at least 80
percent overall for combined scores of three or four as indicated below 2:
State overall 89%

Benchmark 95%
CareStar 80%
Columbus 88%
Compass 100%
Creative 89%
Georgia Support 95%
PCSA 92%
The statewide average for ISPs that met all expectations for all 12 sections for the first quarter of
2018 was 67%. 3 This represents a slight increase over the FY 17 statewide average of 58.7% as
reported in the ASO FY 17 Quality Management Annual Report. 4 The section of the ISP
receiving the lowest performance rating for the first quarter of 2018 was “Goals are Person-
centered”, with 28% of all ISPs addressing 4 of 4 expectations and an additional 18% of ISPs
addressing 3 of 4 expectations (combined 48% of all ISPs). This represents a decrease over the
FY 17 results where 43.9% of ISPs met 4 of 4 expectations and an additional 21.4% addressed 3
of 4 expectations (65.3%). The sections of the ISP receiving the highest ratings in both ratings
periods (over 90%) were in “Rights, Psychotropic Medications, Behavior Supports” and “Health
and Safety Review.”
According to the DBHDD FY 18 Community Quality Improvement Plan, the Department

utilizes data collected from the ASO to identify where the system could benefit from some type
of performance improvement initiative. 5 The Department provided a listing of “trainings that
have been recommended and provided and that address area items noted in the QMAR.” 6
Included in this list of training were four topics addressing person-centered documentation and
language, an appropriate quality improvement initiative in response to the weak performances
identified in the ISP QA Checklist findings.
DBHDD does not report on the timely development of ISPs in the Support Coordination
Performance Report, and it is not reported in the ASO Quality Management Report. This
performance metric is an HCBS waiver quality measure but was not made available for this
report. DBHDD does not report on the number of ISPs approved by the DBHDD Field Office
each month although this is reported by the support coordination agencies on a monthly basis.
DBHDD also does not report on the timely approval of ISPs by the DBHDD Field Offices.
These latter metrics would reflect performance in the submission of quality ISPs not requiring
2
DBHDD Support Coordination Performance Report, June 30, 2018, p. 41.
3
4
Georgia Collaborative ASO FY 17 Quality Management Report, p. 90.
5
DBHDD FY 18 Community Quality Improvement Plan, p. 9.
6
DBHDD response document re: FY 18 Community QI Plan provided to the Independent Monitor, July 5, 2018
5
subsequent corrections for approval, and the performance of the DBHDD field office in the
timely review and approval of ISPs.
Implementation of Plan
This element of provision 16. (a) includes that support coordinators monitor the implementation
of the plan, recognize the individual’s needs and risks if any, promote community integration,
and respond by referring, directly linking and advocating for resources to assist the person in
accessing necessary services and supports. This overlaps in part with 16. (b) which will address
the use of the Individual Quality Outcome Measures Review (IQMR) and implementation of the
coaching and referral policy. This section will address implementation of the ISP as monitored
by face-to-face visits and the ASO Person-centered Reviews.
The most recent DBHDD Support Coordination Performance Report illustrates continued
substantial compliance in face-to-face visits per DBHDD policy. For the period January through
March 2018, face-to-face visit compliance for support coordinators by agency ranged from 90%
to 100%. For intensive support coordination, face-to-face visits are required at least one time per
month. Here again, compliance remained significantly above 90% except for one month for one
agency for this same time period. 7 DBHDD has gone further and analyzed the number of face-to-
face visits based on need using age and health care levels as measures of need in the February
and June 2018 Support Coordination Performance reports. In both instances, the results
substantiate “that as health risk (represented by HCL and increasing age) rises, the number of
face-to-face visits also generally rises.” 8
During these face-to-face visits, the support coordinator is expected, in part, to evaluate the
implementation of the ISP utilizing the Individual Quality Outcome Measures Review Tool
(IQOMR). The IQOMR is divided into seven focus areas: Environment; Appearance/Health;
Supports and Services; Behavioral and Emotional; Home/Community Opportunities; Financial;
and Satisfaction. This report will discuss the support coordinators’ findings as recorded in the
IQOMR under provision 16. (b). The Person-Centered Review (PCR) completed by the Georgia
Collaborative ASO also assesses the individual’s quality of life and the effectiveness of the
service delivery system. The PCR includes a Provider and Support Coordinator Record Review
and Support Coordinator Interview and is organized into six Focused Outcome Areas: Whole
Health; Safety; Person Centered Practices; Community Life; Choice; and, Rights. 9
In FY 17, the ASO identified as Areas for Growth key indicators specific to this provision. In
Person-Centered Practices, providers were found to regularly review, with the individual,
progress toward and benefit of goals 40.4% of the time, and for support coordinators 56.1% of
the time. 10 The Community Life Focus Area, the degree to which individuals were interacting
with and integrated in their surrounding community, showed the lowest average score among all
focus areas at 71.1%, a 10% decrease over FY 16. Drilling down further in the Choice Focus
7
DBHDD Support Coordination Performance Report, June 30, 2018, pp. 19 and 21.
8
9
Georgia Collaborative ASO FY 17 Quality Management Annual Report, pp. 70 and 76.
10
Ibid, p. 81
6
Area to investigate support coordinator performance in this area (as opposed to results from
individual and staff interviews) illustrates substandard results as illustrated below 11:
• Documentation demonstrates how the individuals is supported to learn about, explore and
experience the community = 39%
• Documentation demonstrates how the individual is supported to/able to participate in the
community activities and employment the same as individuals without disabilities =
62.2%
• Documentation demonstrates how there is development of social roles and natural
supports that reflect the individual’s interests = 46.4%
As noted earlier in this report, DBHDD should be utilizing this type of data to craft quality
improvement initiatives. The Department-provided listing of “trainings that have been
recommended and provided and that address area items noted in the QMAR” included one
training topic relevant to these performance findings, Networking in the Community to Build
Relationships and Natural Supports.
An important element in monitoring the implementation of the ISP is the requirement to amend
the ISP when there is a change in the individual’s condition or circumstances necessitating a
change in services and supports. This is accomplished through an ISP amendment, and in certain
circumstances under the Comprehensive and NOW HCBS waivers, the submission of Service
Change/Technical Assistance Requests (STARs). A support coordinator is required to submit a
STAR to 12:
• Reallocate funds from one service to another between service categories where the need
for the other service has not been assessed and approved;
• Specialized Medical Supplies exceeding $3,800;
• Additional Residential Staffing;
• Extraordinary Staffing for CAG;
• Need for Nursing services or increased nursing hours; and,
• Requests for clinical assessments or technical assistance from DBHDD.
The STAR request is submitted by a support coordinator to the DBHDD Regional Office to
obtain approval for a new service, an increase in the amount of a service or obtain an assessment
to determine the need for a service. If the STAR is approved, the support coordinator must then
submit an ISP amendment to the regional office for approval and funding authorization.
In this reviewer’s August 2017 and February 2018 reports, it was identified that the STAR
process was not timely leading to significant delays in receipt of new or increased levels of
services. In the DBHDD document, Ongoing Quality and Performance Improvement Based on
the June 2017 Support Coordination Performance Report, dated February 8, 2018, under Audit
and Review Results, the document lists:
Ibid, p. 84
11
Service Change/Technical Assistance Requests (STARs), Division of Developmental Disabilities presentation,

12
March 2018
7
• Increasing efficiency of STAR processing

• Field Offices are maintaining data regarding the timeliness of decisions for STAR
requests and maintaining categories of requests by type;
• Standardized STAR Process for Field Offices written and distributed for February
1, 2018 implementation.
Five out of six SCA Executive Directors again reported that the STAR process continues to be
problematic, and that performance varied by region. The support coordination agencies reported
that some requests may be reviewed in a timely manner where others may languish for several
months, some requests when denied are not accompanied by an Adverse Action notice so the
individual/guardian can appeal the decision, and there is no mechanism in the system to notify
the support coordinator when there has been a decision on the STAR submission. Support
coordinators report that the speed at which a decision is rendered does not always align with the
urgency of the circumstances driving the request. This issue can have serious consequences for
individuals and providers. Delays in receiving additional staffing or nursing services places
individuals at risk for hospitalization or increased injury, abuse or neglect. If a provider puts in
place the additional staffing or nursing prior to receiving an approved STAR and the STAR is
subsequently denied, the provider must absorb the cost of those services. This can have a
chilling affect on the service delivery system, and interviews with the service coordination
agencies has confirmed this. Support coordinators report that this is especially true when trying
to identify providers who will accept individuals with more complex and/or intense medical or
behavioral health needs. It was noted that some of the delay is in part due to a shortage of
nursing staff within DBHDD, that DBHDD has hired a staff person to coordinate the STAR
process and that the Department is aware of the challenges. DBHDD is also preparing to roll out
a new consumer information system that is anticipated will improve this process.
DBHDD did not provide data regarding its performance in processing STAR requests in a timely
manner even though it reported that it collects that data as of February 2018.
Finally, DBHDD has used the National Core Indicators (NCI) as a method to cross-validate its
performance and outcome findings. In the June 30, 2018 Support Coordination Report, DBHDD
assessed support coordination using seven indicators related to familiarity with the support
coordinator, support coordinator responsiveness, and Individual Service Plan development,
allowing for 24 points of comparison. (One item does not have a national average reported;
therefore, it was not used in the comparison, but reported.) Support Coordination Agencies
performed within or significantly above the national average 96 percent of the time on all NCI
support coordination-specific items. All agencies performed significantly above the national
averages for the indicators of individuals having the people they wanted at their service planning
meeting; and for persons being able to choose the services they want in their service plan.
Georgia Supports Services was the only agency scoring significantly below the national average
for the indicator related to individuals being able to contact their support coordinator when they
want to. 13
13
8
DBHDD can demonstrate full compliance with this provision by:

• Demonstrating statistically significant improving performance in the section of the ISP
receiving the lowest performance rating by the ASO using the ISP QA Checklist for the
first quarter of 2018: Goals are Person-centered”, with 28% of all ISPs addressing 4 of 4
expectations and an additional 18% of ISPs addressing 3 of 4 expectations (combined
48% of all ISPs).
• Demonstrating statistically improving performance in the Focus Outcome Area
Community Life support coordination measures in the FY 18 Georgia Collaborative
ASO Quality Management Annual Report.
• Providing data regarding the timeliness of STAR decisions for evaluation.
16.b.: Compliance
As noted in previous reports, DBHDD has implemented the use of a uniform tool, the IQOMR,
and published guidelines for implementation of the tool as required. In her August 2017 report,
this reviewer recommended reviewing this tool and splitting some multipart questions apart to
improve data analysis. DBHDD completed a review of the tool and has implemented a revised
tool effective January 1, 2018 that addressed that recommendation.
To complete the IQOMR, the support coordinator is to use observation of the setting, staff and
the individual, record review and discussion with the individual and staff. Based on the support
coordinator’s completion of those steps, each focus area question is evaluated as “acceptable” or
“coaching” when a concern, issue or deficit is discovered in an element of a focus area
question. 14 The DBHDD policy and procedure, Outcome Evaluation: “Recognize, Refer, and
Act” Model, 02-435, last reviewed January 19, 2018, is what DBHDD refers to as “coaching and
referral” in its data and performance reports.
DBHDD reports this system continues to be effective as evidenced by continued positive data
gathered from the Consumer Information System (CIS). For the period October 2016 to October
2017, DBHDD reports that Support Coordinators opened 14,838 coaching records, provided 3,712
referrals in response to individuals’ needs in order to facilitate positive outcomes, that 90% of
identified issues were resolved through coaching without requiring elevation to referral status, and,
that less than 1% of issues remain unresolved and required follow-up by the Division of
Accountability and Compliance.15 This exactly mirrors the performance reported in the Fiscal Year
2017 Annual Support Coordination Performance Report.
In the February 16, 2018, FY 17 Support Coordination Performance Report, DBHDD evaluated
the number of coaching and referrals per person for each Support Coordination Agency. This
represented the first time this analysis was completed, and DBHDD indicated that “one should
exercise great caution before proceeding to draw conclusions on the number and frequency
comparisons for several reasons.” Those reasons being that it is a new metric that requires
14
DBHDD Support Coordination Performance Report, June 30, 2018, p. 24
15
ADA Settlement Extension Agreement Parties Meeting Materials, PowerPoint Presentation, January 12, 2018
9
additional analysis, that there are other positive outcomes occurring for individuals in the system
regardless of the rate of coaching and referrals made, or some support coordinators may simply
not be documenting coaching efforts. 16 DBHDD published a second report on June 30, 2018 and
updated its findings for the period July 2017 through March 2018 (partial year of FY 18). The
resulting discussion below was identical in both reports except where noted:
“Coaching and referral activities (combined) are ordered from highest to lowest as listed
below, and the order of the tables below follow this order. As can be seen,
appearance/health and supports/services, not surprisingly, are the areas where support
coordinators have focused the highest volume of coaching and referral activities.
1. Appearance/health,
2. Supports/services,
3. Environment,
4. Home and community options,
5. Financial,
6. Behavioral and emotional,
7. Satisfaction.
As with the overall system performance perspective, Compass most frequently delivered
the largest number of coaching and referral activities per individual across most areas;
conversely, Columbus most frequently delivered the fewest coaching and referral
activities per individual across most areas.
Appearance/health is the busiest area of activity for support coordinators, and

appearance/health has over half of all open referrals beyond the expected close date.
This indicates that support coordinators are experiencing barriers to resolving
appearance/health issues for individuals, and support coordinators may need additional
support to facilitate improved appearance/health outcomes.
Support coordinators also dedicated substantial resources towards producing positive

outcomes for supports/services areas by delivering coaching and referral activities
second most frequently in this area. Almost 25 percent (12.5 percent in the June 30, 2018
report ) of all open referrals beyond the expected close date are also in this area, which
suggests that support coordinators may need additional support to facilitate improved
supports and services outcomes.”
“DBHDD is still investigating ways to determine how support coordination activities

(e.g., face-to-face visits, coaching sessions, referrals, ancillary activities, etc.) as well as
the combination of other services and supports are related to outcomes.”
The coaching and referral statistics reported for the period July 2017 through March 2018 (9-
month period) are trending higher over FY 17 (14,227 coachings and 4,486 referrals). Despite
this, the average number of coachings per person remains low if the support coordinator in fact
16
GA DBHDD Support Coordination Performance Report, February 16, 2018, p. 21
10
records a coaching each time an element of the IQOMR is found to be less than acceptable. In
this 9-month period, two Support Coordination Agencies averaged less than 1 coaching per
person, five agencies averaged less than 2 coachings per person and one agency averaged 3.22
coachings per person. The IQOMR between July and December 2017 contained 25 items, and
between December and March 2018 contained 55 items, and IQOMR Tools are to be completed
every quarter for individuals receiving support coordination services and monthly for those
receiving intensive support coordination. Rough calculations result in over one million assessed
elements in this time period, so the low frequency of coachings per person would suggest that the
DBHDD provider system is performing extremely well.
DBHDD reported the IQOMR findings for the first quarter of calendar year 2018 to act as a
baseline of performance in the June 2018 Support Coordination Performance Report in the table
below 17.
Baseline
March 2018
SC
Environmental 92.8%
Appearance/Health 93.3%
Supports and Services 95.6%
Behavioral and Emotional 73.5%
Home/Community Opportunities 91.0%
ISC
Environmental 97.3%
Appearance/Health 90.9%
Supports and Services 91.5%
Behavioral and Emotional 58.1%
Home/Community Opportunities 85.5%
The June report established baselines for each Support Coordination Agency in each area. These
findings generally align with the ASO PCR findings in the health and behavior areas and are
higher than those reported in the ASO findings in Supports and Services and Home/Community
Opportunities. The challenges identified in the Behavioral and Emotional focus area are
reflected across the system. Interviews with Support Coordination Agencies and the Georgia
Advocacy Office confirm that there is an insufficient number of behavioral health providers in
the system, people remain in crisis homes or psychiatric settings for long periods of time while
waiting for a new provider to provide residential services, and existing residential providers are
quick to discharge individuals who present behavioral health challenges.
The Support Coordination Agency Executive Directors expressed less satisfaction with the
coaching process than previously reported. Discussions revealed a number of changing
dynamics in the field in this area. Support Coordination Agencies reported that there continues
to be some tension expressed by provider agencies that view coachings as punitive and it can
poison relationships. Support coordinators also reported concerns that increasingly providers are
17
Ibid, p. 37
11
pressuring individuals to change Support Coordination Agencies if subject to unwanted

oversight. There continues to be little confidence that DBHDD has a system in place to affect
provider performance effectively.
16.c.: Substantial Compliance
DBHDD produced a second report, DBHDD Support Coordination Performance Report,

February 16, 2018, evaluating data for the period October 2016 to October 2017, and a third
report dated June 30, 2018 with updated data through March 2018. These reports evaluated
performance findings for Support Coordination Agencies in the following areas:
1. Caseload Size,
2. Face-to-Face Visits,
3. Coaching and Referrals,
4. Outcomes,
5. Critical Incident Reports (June 30, 2018),
6. ISP Quality Results (June 30, 2018).
16.d.: Noncompliance
DBHDD corrected the technical error in Reporting of Critical Incidents (ROCI) information
management system in this reporting period that prevented critical incident investigative reports
from being transmitted to Support Coordination Agencies. The ROCI system is to designed to
send “same-day alerts” to the assigned Support Coordination Agency when an incident or
investigative report has been uploaded into the system. DBHDD provided data for the period
January 1, 2018 2018 through June 15, 2018.
For Critical Incident Reports, the average number of days to notify the Support Coordination
Agency was 10.3 days for the first quarter of calender year 2018, and 18.1 days for the second
quarter of calendar year 2018. For investigative reports, only one month of data was reported
without indicating the total number of reports represented. In this month (May 2018), the average
time for notification was 9 days.
These findings were supported through interviews with Support Coordination Agency Executive
Directors who confirmed that notifications for critical incidents continue to come into the support
coordinaiton agency in about two weeks, and that when critical incident investigation reports are
received, it is likely nine months to a year since the critical incident occurred and it is no longer
relevant.
To achieve substanital compliance with this measure, DBHDD must ensure that Support
Coordination Agencies are timely notified of submitted critical incident reports so that support
coordinators can respond in a timely manner to address potential gaps in services and supports.
12
16.e.: Non-compliance
DBHDD Support Coordination Performance Report dated February 16, 2018 reported on
caseload compliance using a standard of 85% for substantial compliance. As of October 1, 2017,
five (5) SCAs maintained caseloads above 85% and two were below 85%. One of those
agencies, CareStar, was at 100% compliance for four consecutive months and then dropped to 70
and 75% for August and September of 2017. In the June 30, 2018 DBHDD Performance Report,
as of March 2018, the “proportion of support coordinators in compliance with caseload
requirements is above 85% for six of seven Support Coordination Agencies, and the overall
caseload compliance for the population is 91 percent as well.” 18
DBHDD provided caseload data for support coordination as of January 7, 2018 to the
Independent Reviewer for the February report documenting the following performance:
• One agency at 100% compliance;
• Four agencies at 90% or above compliance;
• Two agencies between 85-89% compliance; and,
• One agency at 75% compliance.
DBHDD provided caseload data for support coordination as of June 30, 2018 to the Independent
Reviewer for this report documenting the following performance:
• Two agencies at 100% compliance;
• Two agencies above 90% compliance;
• Two agencies between 70 – 80% compliance; and,
• One agency at 44% complaince.
Support Coordination Agencies acknowledge the challenges with maintaining caseload compliance,
especially if the agency accepts all referrals. Balancing funding, hiring and on-boarding, short-term
absences and the geographic distribution of referrals is an ongoing management challenge. Support
Coordination Agencies also noted the increasing demands of individuals who are assigned to general
support coordination caseloads yet have significant service coordination needs.
16.f.: Substantial Compliance
Please see data reported under 16.a. of this report.
16.g.: Substantial Compliance
Data provided by DBHDD indicates that support coordinators are assigned more than 60 days prior
to discharge from State Hospitals.
18
DBHDD Support Coordination Performance Report, June 30, 2018, p. 17
13
18.: Noncompliance
DBHDD has identified two categories of providers to address in the provider recruitment plan;
residential service providers for individuals with complex medical or behavioral needs, and
community clinical services, such as occupational, speech and physical therapy, and other
critical services needed to support individuals in the community19. Interviews with Support
Coordination Agencies and the Georgia Advocacy Office corroborate those needs and described
the negative impacts these needs are having on individuals in the community and for those
waiting to transition into the community.
This reviewer accessed the Georgia Collaborative ASO website, Find a Provider tool at
https://www.valueoptions.com/referralconnect/facilitySearch.do?nextpage=nextpage on August
3, 2018 to search for clinical providers accepting new referrals. The following results were
provided:
• Behavioral support consultation = 56,
• CRA = 2,
• Nursing services = 17,
• Occupational therapy = 4,
• Physical therapy = 5,
• Speech therapy = 6.
A review of the provider enrollment process available through the ASO website describes a
process that requires at minimum seven months to successfully enroll in one of the DD HCBS
waiver programs.
The plan described in the Parties Meeting indicates that an Enterprise workgroup has been
established to evaluate individual support profiles and work to address gaps in reimbursable
services with final recommendations from the workgroup due in May 2018.
DBHDD needs to fully develop and implement a robust and enterprise-wide provider recruitment
plan in the identified provider categories resulting in significant increases in clinical provider
enrollment relative to the service population numbers and needs to demonstrate compliance.
24: Compliance
The FY 2016 Annual Mortality Report, the third such report, was published on August 22, 2017.
The report is in compliance with this provision. The FY 17 report is expected in August 2018.
DBHDD provided a listing of IDD Quality Improvement Projects submitted as an attachment to
the Department of Justice Deliverable 24, dated June 27, 2018, specific to initiatives including
those to reduce mortality rates for individuals with DD in the community. The list certainly
reflects appropriate quality improvement initiatives in support of health and wellness for
individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
19
ADA Settlement Extension Agreement Parties Meeting Presentation by DBHDD, 4/13/18, p. 135.
14
Notably absent were efforts directed toward addressing the most frequently cited deficient
practices (deficient response to change in condition, an emergency or medical needs) and to one
of the leading causes of death, aspiration. The Quality Improvement list ends with a status update
on additional training needs:
“Training on Preventive Healthcare and Specific Conditions Common in
Individuals with I/DD has been provided. Additional training being developed
includes topics such as Health/Wellness, Medical Risks, Responding to Medical
Care Needs, Documentation of Care, especially clinical progress notes and
medical notes.”
Responding to medical needs was among the most frequently cited deficient practice that has yet
to be addressed via a quality improvement effort now almost one year later. The Mortality
Report also pointed out that individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities shared
six of the top ten leading causes of death with the U.S. and Georgia general populations. This
supports that general public health recommendations must also be implemented for those
supported by DBHDD. The FY 17 ASO Quality Management Annual Report identified as an
area for growth that less than 50% of an individual’s records contained the person’s preventative
health care report for male and female preventative screenings compliance. 20 It is not clear if this
is among the quality improvement efforts.
28: Noncompliance
DBHDD provided letters of attestation from all Support Coordination Agencies indicating that
each agency had in place a risk and quality management and improvement plan as required by
Provision 28. DBHDD also indicated it is working with its Administrative Service Organization
to include an evaluation of this requirement into future support coordination agency provider
reviews.
The Support Coordination Agencies provided evidence of their respective risk and quality
management and improvement plans to this reviewer upon request. The plans varied in detail,
none provided evidence of implementation of the plan, and one agency executive indicated that it
was still not clear at least to this agency what was expected by DBHDD in this area. Four
agencies submitted plans found to be sufficient, one agency provided a policy that indicated it
should have a plan but it was not provided, one agency submitted a plan that was incomplete,
and one agency submitted a plan still under development.
Conclusion
DBHDD has established a strong system of Support Coordination Agencies and supporting
policies and procedures. DBHDD has strong data collection, analysis and reporting capabilities
and an organizational structure to support the development of quality improvement initiatives.
There are some discrepancies apparent when reviewing the ASO independent findings and those
reported by the support coordinators. Interviews with Support Coordination Agencies suggest
20
Georgia Collaborative FY 17 Quality Management Annual Report, p. 81.
15
there are remaining challenges for DBHDD. The reform intended to move support coordination
and other waiver services into complementary roles that would better reflect collaborative
partnerships in service delivery, with a shared emphasis on producing quality outcomes for
waiver participants, has certainly experienced success. But tension does remain, especially in
cases of poorly performing waiver service providers. While DBHDD continues to develop
increasing monitoring and surveillance data collection and analysis capabilities, this must be
paired with consistent support and interventions on the part of DBHDD to ensure continued
improvements in the system at large.
16
Independent Review: Compliance with ACT following DACTS Standards
Angela L. Rollins, Ph.D.

August 8, 2018
1
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to assess compliance with the Settlement Agreement provision
requiring that ACT services follow the Dartmouth Assertive Community Treatment Scale
(DACTS) standards. This obligation was carried forward from the original Settlement
Agreement.
III.B.2.a.i.(G).
All ACT teams will operate with fidelity to the Dartmouth Assertive Community
Treatment model.
Methodology
To assess compliance with this provision, numerous FY18 documents were reviewed: State-
provided ACT fidelity assessments for each team; State-contracted ACT census tables (monthly
census reports by team); DACTS item scoring table by team; ACT quality improvement plan
summaries; monthly team discharge tables (i.e., raw discharge numbers including duplicates);
ACT effectiveness study (dated January 2018); ACT person-time discharge analysis (dated
January 2018); and similar reports from previous years. Previous reports were used for
comparison on progress. Also, a brief phone conversation with an ACT program administrator
took place. A report written by Norquist Grayson was also reviewed, particularly the sections
regarding ACT services.
Findings
System strengths
State fidelity monitoring. The State continues to implement ACT in 22 State-contracted teams
and uses the DACTS as the fidelity standard. Teams receive an annual assessment of their
fidelity according to the DACTS with written reports, including feedback on items where the
team scores below 5 (the highest possible score). Teams are expected to score a mean of 4.0 or
higher across all 28 DACTS items, as well as expecting teams to score a 3 or higher on each
individual DACTS item. When either of these standards is not met, the State and the team
implement a corrective action plan to remedy weak areas.
DACTS fidelity scores. Over all 28 DACTS items, the 22 State-contracted teams are scoring
well, with an overall statewide DACTS average of 4.34. Only two teams had a mean DACTS
score below 4.0 (both scored a 3.9, also very high). Some concerns about specific items are
detailed below.
Active DBHDD regional Field Office staff. The corrective action plans showed evidence of
active involvement from DBHDD Field Offices in supporting ACT services. This involvement
is consistent with previous observations over the years. With a larger State, the ability to have
in-person, hands-on technical assistance from knowledgeable staff nearby is essential. Examples
noted included both team-level trainings offered onsite at the agency and monthly or quarterly
monitoring of fidelity metrics to improve compliance with DACTS standards.
2
Areas for further consideration

Low frequency of ACT services. Some concerns remain regarding teams’ struggling with
maintaining a high frequency of contact between ACT teams and their consumers. Although the
DACTS criteria to achieve a “5” on frequency of contact is perhaps stringent (four or more per
consumer per week), a score of “2” denotes less than two contacts per consumer per week.
Seven of 22 teams scored a “2” on this item in FY18, indicating this aspect of ACT service is
becoming a problem for more teams again, although the statewide average on the items remains
relatively steady around 2.9 or 3.0. A “3” on this item indicates less than three contacts per
consumer per week.
Table 1. S4 and S5 scores over time.
S4 Service intensity S5 Service frequency
State # Teams State # Teams
Average scoring 1 or 2 Average scoring 1 or 2
FY18 4.0 2/22 2.9 7/22
FY17 4.0 0/22 3.0 4/22
FY16 3.9 2/22 3.0 3/22
FY15 3.7 0/22 2.9 5/22
FY14 3.9 0/22 2.8 8/22
FY13 3.8 2/21 3.0 3/21
Co-occurring disorders model scoring. One concern with fidelity scoring is that all 22 teams
were rated a 5 on the co-occurring disorders model item, one of the more difficult DACTS items
to rate. It would be exceedingly rare for all 22 teams to score this high, particularly given that
some teams were without a substance abuse specialist and did not offer substance abuse groups.
Without additional details, I view these scores with some skepticism. A DACTS score of 4 on
this item, for instance, still requires a stage-based approach to group offerings (i.e., both
persuasion-oriented and action-oriented groups). An inflated score on this item by one point
(e.g., scoring a team as a 5 instead of a 4), inflates the overall DACTS mean by .0357. Inflating
this item score by 2 points (e.g., scoring a team as a 5 instead of a 3), inflates the overall DACTS
mean by .071. Inflating this item score by even 4 points (i.e., scoring teams as a 5 instead of a 1,
which is unlikely given my knowledge of the teams), would inflate the overall DACTS mean by
.143. Therefore the overall impact of scoring errors would not be terribly large on the statewide
DACTS overall average, even in the unlikely event that every team was given a score of 5
instead of 1 on this single item. For example, in the worst case scenario of inflating by 4 full
points (which is unlikely), the state average would be corrected to 4.20 from 4.34 (the current
statewide average as reported). Given the current DACTS overall means of the 3 lowest scoring
teams in the state (3.89, 3.93, and 4.04), a two-point error would put the lowest scoring teams to
3.82, 3.86, and 3.96, respectively. Any actual scoring error cannot be quantified without
additional information.
Even if scoring errors for this item are minimal, it remains important to examine scoring methods
for this item to reinforce critical elements of integrated dual disorders treatment that produce the
3
best results for consumers on ACT teams with co-occurring mental health and substance use
disorders.
Consumer tenure on ACT. Another concern is the rapid turnover of consumers on the ACT
teams, either due to rapid graduation and/or high dropouts. The reports on the rate of discharge
are concerning because the State indicates that there is no way to reliably mark enrollment in
ACT in their systems. As a proxy, the State assumes ACT enrollment at the first instance of
ACT billing with no prior billing in the previous 45 days. This is a reasonable method in the
absence of a distinct enrollment date, but the data presented still do not allow us to measure ACT
tenure for consumers, a critical point of consideration as to whether the State is using ACT as a
time-limited service. As mentioned in the report, observing length of stay only for those
consumers who have left the team can be problematic when observations are over short periods.
Over longer periods, these issues are less problematic (e.g., over five years, a greater percentage
of consumers have time to graduate, even after a long length of stay). Within a shorter
timeframe, there also may be other methods to assess the current tenure of ACT consumers who
remain with the team in addition to length of stay for ACT discharges to provide a fuller
description of how long consumers enrolled are receiving ACT services.
Remote fidelity assessment. Seven of the 22 State-contracted teams received a remote fidelity
assessment in FY18. As noted in my February 2018 report to the Independent Reviewer, there
are some concerns about how teams were selected for the remote assessment and how some of
the more difficult elements of remote fidelity assessments (e.g., chart reviews to score numerous
items) were conducted. This report also emphasized the developmental quality of onsite
assessments noted in my own research on these methods. I can say that some teams scored via a
remote assessment still scored low on a few items, indicating that these methods used in Georgia
were able to capture lower scoring ACT procedures.
ACT Effectiveness. The State also changed its method of evaluating ACT effectiveness. It is
now comparing the number of admissions and hospital days during and after ACT. Previous
years’ reports compared the metrics before and during ACT. Changes in all three phases is
important for comparison (pre, during, and post ACT). Adding an “after ACT” phase in the
comparison could help illuminate any loss in the benefits of ACT if ACT services are terminated
too early, so this addition is worthwhile. However, it would be beneficial to examine
hospitalization patterns with respect to all three phases and to include descriptive data on number
and length of hospitalizations for each group of consumers in the comparison. The main findings
of the report were that hospital admissions were more common during an ACT episode than after
that ACT episode. However, days hospitalized were higher for those who were hospitalized after
ACT, compared to those hospitalized during ACT. The report indicates these analyses only
include one year of data, so it is perhaps early to draw many conclusions.
Access to ACT in Region 3. A report co-authored by Norquist mentioned waiting lists for ACT
teams in metro Atlanta. An administrator for one large agency anecdotally reported that their
wait list can grow to around 40 (roughly half an ACT team) each month. Many of those on the
waiting list are reported to be very likely to meet ACT criteria because the referral sources are
now knowledgeable about ACT admission criteria and rarely attempt to refer consumers who
4
would not be accepted for ACT. Increasingly monthly intake maximums would likely decrease
wait lists but also would be likely to negatively impact the quality of services offered because
ACT consumers often need assistance in numerous domains at enrollment (e.g., mental health,
housing needs, insurance, legal problems) and ample time for engagement with the providers.
Conclusions
Georgia is in compliance with the provision that ACT teams operate with fidelity to the DACTS,
with an overall DACTS statewide average of 4.34. However, concerns remain regarding certain
elements of ACT services; these may require further monitoring and improvements, as noted
above.
5
Independent Review: Behavioral Programming

for Eleven Individuals with a Developmental Disability
Submitted by:
Patrick F. Heick, Ph. D., BCBA-D
August 8, 2018
The following Summary was prepared and submitted in response to the Independent Reviewer’s
request to summarize a sample of reviews completed as part of her analysis of supports provided
to individuals with challenging behaviors, including those with encounters with law
enforcement. The following summary is based upon the reviews of the behavioral support and
services for eleven individuals 1. These reviews compared the behavioral programming and
supports that are currently reported to be in place with generally accepted standards and practice
recommendations with regard to components of effective behavioral programming and supports
– these components included: (1) level of need (i.e., based on behaviors that are dangerous to self
or others, disrupt the environment, and negatively impact his/her quality of life and ability to
learn new skills and gain independence); (2) Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA); (3)
Behavioral Support Plan (BSP); (4) ongoing data collection, including regular summary and
analysis; and (5) care provider and staff training. It should be noted this reviewer does not intend
to offer these as reflective of an exhaustive listing of essential elements of behavioral
programming and supports. Furthermore, these reviews were based on the understanding that all
existing documents were available onsite and/or provided in response to the Independent
Reviewer’s initial request. However, as noted within submitted individual reviews, requested
documentation was found to be inconsistently available onsite. It should be noted that an
informal review of a twelfth individual was also completed as requested; however, a Monitoring
Questionnaire was not completed as directed – information related to this individual review is
not summarized here.
This Summary is submitted in addition to Monitoring Questionnaires completed for each of the
eleven individuals sampled, as well as Data Summaries. It should be noted that the following
Summary and data summaries are based upon the Monitoring Questionnaires, which were
completed using information obtained during on-site observations and interviews with care
givers, as well as documentation provided in response to the Independent Reviewer's document
request including documents obtained while onsite or received electronically from the
Independent Reviewer or designee.
Summary
Findings
• Based on a review of the completed individuals’ service records and other provided
documentation, as well as the completed Monitoring Questionnaires, most of the
individuals sampled demonstrated significant maladaptive behaviors. These behaviors
had dangerous and disruptive consequences to these individuals and their households,
including negative impacts on the quality of these individuals’ lives and their ability to
become more independent. More specifically, of those sampled, ten (91%) engaged in
behaviors that could result in injury to self or others, ten (91%) engaged in behaviors that
disrupt the environment and six (55%) engaged in behaviors that impeded his/her ability
to access a wide range of environments. In addition, of those sampled, nine (82%)
1
A twelfth individual (A.D.) was visited while incarcerated at the DeKalb County Jail. He had a history of failed
community placements and was awaiting the identification of a residential provider. As noted above, given that a
Monitoring Questionnaire was not completed by the reviewer, he was not included within the current sample.
2
engaged in behaviors that impeded their abilities to learn new skills or generalize already
learned skills. Overall, eleven (100%) of the individuals sampled appeared to
demonstrate significant maladaptive behaviors that negatively impacted their quality of
life and greater independence. The current review also revealed that most of the
individuals sampled experienced negative outcomes or required more intensive supports.
More specifically, of those sampled, ten (91%) individuals 2 experienced one or more
incidents with law enforcement and eight (73%) individuals accessed crisis services,
including calling mobile crisis supports and/or admission to one or more Crisis Support
Homes. Of those sampled, nine (82%) individuals experienced at least one transfer
between settings and nine (82%) individuals experienced an emergency room visit or
unexpected hospitalization. Lastly, of those sampled, nine (82%) individuals have
displayed one or more incidents of elopement (see Figure 1).
Closer examination of obtained information revealed the following findings:

o Ten (91%) of the individuals sampled experienced one or more incidents with law
enforcement. Of these ten, three (30%) and seven (70%) individuals had a single
or multiple encounter(s) with police, respectively, and five (50%) individuals
were reportedly arrested one or more times (see Figure 2).
o Eight (73%) of the individuals sampled had accessed crisis services, including
calling mobile crisis support and/or admission to one or more Crisis Support
Homes. Of these eight, all (100%) of the individuals had experienced multiple
incidents of crisis support, with six (75%) and three (38%) individuals
experiencing previous or current admissions, respectively, to Crisis Support
Homes (see Figure 3).
o Nine (82%) of the individuals sampled experienced a transfer between settings.
Of these nine, four (44%) and five (56%) individuals experienced single or
multiple transfers, respectively, with at least four (44%) individuals transitioning
due to their unsafe behavior (see Figure 4).
o Nine (82%) of the individuals sampled experienced an emergency room visit or
unexpected hospitalization. Of these nine, four (44%) and five (56%) individuals
experienced a single or multiple emergency room visits, respectively, including
eight (89%) individuals who were transported at least once to the ER due to their
unsafe behavior (see Figure 5).
o Nine (82%) of the individuals sampled displayed incidents of elopement, with two
(22%) and seven (78%) individuals demonstrating single or multiple incidents,
respectively. Fortunately, only one (11%) individual was reported missing during
an elopement incident (see Figure 5).
Overall, of the eleven individuals sampled, only seven (64%) individuals were receiving
formal behavioral programming through Behavior Support Plans (BSPs) at the time of
the on-site visit. Based on the data provided above, it appeared that all of the individuals
would likely benefit from positive behavioral programming and supports implemented
within their homes or residential programs (see Figure 1).
2
One of the individuals reviewed (C.G.) did not have an encounter with law enforcement. She was included in the
current sample based on her re-admission to a Crisis Support Home following another community-based placement
and because she had previously been reviewed by the reviewer.
3
• As noted above, of the eleven individuals sampled, seven (64%) individuals had BSPs
implemented at the time of the onsite visits. Of these seven, seven (100%) individuals
had BSPs that were considered current (i.e., updated or implemented within the last 12
months); however, only six (86%) individuals had BSPs that were actually designed for
the setting in which it was currently implemented. Evidence that sampled staff had
received training on the BSP was only identified for four (57%) individuals. Lastly,
BCBA involvement in the development of the BSP was noted only for four (57%)
individuals (see Figure 6).
• As noted above, of the eleven individuals sampled, seven (64%) individuals had BSPs.
Of these seven, six (86%) individuals had BSPs that suggested that a Functional Behavior
Assessment (FBA) had been completed. However, when closely examined, of the six
FBAs described, only four (67%) appeared to utilize descriptive methods of assessment
and only four (67%) were completed in the current setting. Overall, only three (50%)
FBAs were considered current and complete – this indicated that only three (43%) BSPs
were developed using current and complete FBAs. Generally accepted practice
recommendations include developing a BSP based on results of a comprehensive FBA
completed within the natural environment (current setting), including an emphasis on the
use of descriptive (e.g., systematic direct observation) methods, in addition to indirect
methods, when identifying and supporting potential hypotheses regarding underlying
function(s) of target behavior (see Figure 7).
• As noted above, seven (64%) individuals had BSPs and, in general, individuals with a
BSP typically have a corresponding Crisis Safety Plan (CSP). Of these seven individuals
with BSPs, seven (100%) were found to have CSPs either as independent documents or
crisis strategies integrated within the BSP. In addition, it was noted that one individual
(Q.C.) who did not have a BSP, actually had a CSP currently in place. When closely
examined, of the eight CSPs, eight (100%) were considered current (i.e., updated or
implemented within the last 12 months) and seven (88%) appeared designed for the
setting in which it was currently implemented. However, evidence that sampled staff had
received training on the CSP was only identified for the plans of three (38%) individuals
(see Figure 8).
• As noted above, seven (78%) of the individuals had BSPs. Upon closer examination of
these BSPs, it was noted that prescribed behavioral programming appeared inadequate
(see Individual Summary of Findings for specific information). For example, as
illustrated in Figure 9, of the seven BSPs reviewed, only three (43%) BSPs adequately
identified and operationally defined target behaviors. And, evidence of adequate ongoing
data collection on these target behaviors was found for only one (14%) BSP. In addition,
no (0%) BSPs adequately identified and operationally defined functionally equivalent
replacement behaviors (FERBS). And, evidence of adequate ongoing data collection of
FERBS was not found for any (0%) BSPs. Overall, evidence of adequate ongoing
collection, summary, and regular review of both target and replacement behaviors was
not found for any (0%) of the BSPs. And, although seven (100%) and seven (100%)
BSPs included antecedent- and consequence-based interventions, respectively, only four
4
(57%) included strategies to promote replacement behaviors. Lastly, only two (29%) and
one (14%) of the BSPs, based on verbal report and direct observation, respectively,
appeared to be implemented with a high degree of integrity. Overall, this reviewer noted
significant inadequacies in behavioral programming for all of the individuals with BSPs
(see Figure 9). It should be noted that, although several sampled FBAs and/or BSPs (e.g.,
S.S., C.G., D.N., & D.H.) appeared of higher quality than other sampled FBAs and/or
BSPs, behavioral programming associated with these plans was limited due to inadequate
definitions of target and/or replacement behaviors, inadequate ongoing data collection
and/or monitoring of target and replacement behaviors, and inadequate training and/or
treatment integrity. Generally accepted practice recommendations include identifying and
operationally defining target behaviors and FERBs as well as ongoing data collection and
regular review to promote data-based decision making and facilitate revisions, when
necessary.
• As noted above, seven (64%) individuals had BSPs. Upon closer examination of these
BSPs, it was revealed that only four (57%) were developed with the involvement of a
Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA). The BCBA is the nationally accepted
certification for practitioners of applied behavior analysis. This certification is granted
by the Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB), a nonprofit corporation established
to develop, promote, and implement a national and international certification program for
behavior analyst practitioners.
Note: In the Figures below, 1 means Yes and 0 means No. The item numbers at the top of each
column in Figures 1-5, and 9 refer to that question in the Monitoring Questionnaire.
162. Does the individual engage in any behaviors (e.g., self-injury, aggression, property
destruction, pica, elopement, etc.) that could result in injury to self or others?
163. Does the individual engage in behaviors (e.g., screaming, tantrums, etc.) that disrupt
the environment?
164. Does the individual engage in behaviors that impede his/her ability to access a wide
range of environments (e.g., public markets, restaurants, libraries, etc.)?
165. Does the individual engage in behaviors that impede his/her ability to learn new
skills or generalize already learned skills?
166. Does the individual engage in behaviors that negatively impact his/her quality of life
and greater independence?
189. Has there been police contact?
191. Has there been an emergency room visit or unexpected medical hospitalization?
192. Has there been an unauthorized departure?
5
194. Has there been a transfer to a different setting from which he/she originally
transitioned?
197. Have crisis services been contacted?
Figure 1
item item item item item item item item item item
Name BSP
162 163 164 165 166 189 191 192 194 197
A.H. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
W.F. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Z.C. 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
S.S. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
C.G. 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1
D.N. 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
J.J. 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0
Q.B. 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1
Q.C. 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
D.H. 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
R.H. 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
total (N=11) 7 10 10 6 9 11 10 9 9 9 8
percentage 64% 91% 91% 55% 82% 100% 91% 82% 82% 82% 73%
189. Has there been police contact?
Figure 2
item single 1+
Name arrest
189 event events
A.H. 1 0 1 1
W.F. 1 0 1 1
Z.C. 1 0 1 0
S.S. 1 1 0 0
C.G. 0 0 0 0
D.N. 1 0 1 1
J.J. 1 0 1 1
Q.B. 1 1 0 0
Q.C. 1 1 0 0
D.H. 1 0 1 1
R.H. 1 0 1 0
total (N=11) 10 3 7 5
percentage 91% 30% 70% 50%
6
197. Have crisis services been contacted?
Figure 3
item single 1+ previous current
Name
197 event events admission admission
A.H. 1 0 1 0 0
W.F. 1 0 1 1 0
Z.C. 1 0 1 1 0
S.S. 0 0 0 0 0
C.G. 1 0 1 1 1
D.N. 1 0 1 1 1
J.J. 0 0 0 0 0
Q.B. 1 0 1 1 1
Q.C. 1 0 1 0 0
D.H. 1 0 1 1 0
R.H. 0 0 0 0 0
total (N=11) 8 0 8 6 3
percentage 73% 0% 100% 75% 38%
194. Has there been a transfer to a different setting from which he/she originally
transitioned?
Figure 4
due to
item single 1+
Name unsafe
194 event events
behavior?
A.H. 1 1 0 cnd
W.F. 1 0 1 1
Z.C. 1 1 0 0
S.S. 0 0 0 0
C.G. 1 0 1 1
D.N. 1 0 1 1
J.J. 1 1 0 0
Q.B. 1 0 1 0
Q.C. 1 1 0 0
D.H. 1 0 1 1
R.H. 0 0 0 0
total (N=11) 9 4 5 4
percentage 82% 44% 56% 44%
7
191. Has there been an emergency room visit or unexpected medical hospitalization?
Figure 5
due to
item single 1+ item single 1+
Name unsafe missing
191 event events 192 event events
behavior?
A.H. 1 1 cnd 1 1 0 1 0
W.F. 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0
Z.C. 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0
S.S. 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
C.G. 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
D.N. 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0
J.J. 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q.B. 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Q.C. 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
D.H. 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0
R.H. 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1
total (N=11) 9 4 5 8 9 2 7 1
percentage 82% 44% 56% 89% 82% 22% 78% 11%
Figure 6
Staff were
BSP is BSP Designed for A BCBA was
Name BSP trained on the
Current current setting involved
BSP
A.H. 1 1 1 cnd 0
W.F. 1 1 1 cnd 0
Z.C. 0
S.S. 1 1 1 1 0
C.G. 1 1 1 1 1
D.N. 1 1 1 1 1
J.J. 0
Q.B. 1 1 0 1 1
Q.C. 0
D.H. 1 1 1 0 1
R.H. 0
total (N=11) 7 7 6 4 4
percentage 64% 100% 86% 57% 57%
8
Figure 7
FBA used FBA completed

FBA is current
Name BSP FBA descriptive in current
& complete
methods setting
A.H. 1 1 cnd cnd cnd

W.F. 1 1 cnd cnd cnd
Z.C. 0 0
S.S. 1 1 0 1 1
C.G. 1 1 1 1 1
D.N. 1 1 1 1 1
J.J. 0 0
Q.B. 1 0
Q.C. 0 0
D.H. 1 1 1 1 1
R.H. 0 0
total (N=11) 7 6 3 4 4
percentage 64% 86% 50% 67% 67%
Figure 8
Staff were
CSP designed for
Name BSP CSP CSP is current trained on the
current setting
CSP
A.H. 1 1 1 1 cnd
W.F. 1 in BSP 1 1 cnd
Z.C. 0 0
S.S. 1 1 1 1 cnd
C.G. 1 1 1 1 1
D.N. 1 1 1 1 1
J.J. 0 0
Q.B. 1 1 1 0 1
Q.C. 0 1 1 1 0
D.H. 1 1 1 1 0
R.H. 0 0
total (N=11) 7 8 8 7 3
percentage 64% 73% 100% 88% 38%
9
122. Was the proposed hypothesis of function(s) of behavior identified?
124. Were all target behavior(s) adequately defined (e.g., objective, measureable, etc)?
127. Was there ongoing and adequate data collection for all target behaviors?
128. Were replacement behavior(s) based upon the FBA (i.e., functionally equivalent)?
129. Were replacement behavior(s) adequately defined (e.g., objective, measureable, etc)?
132. Was there ongoing and adequate data collection for all replacement behaviors?
133. Were strategies to promote replacement behavior(s) identified?
134. Were preventative, proactive and/or antecedent-based strategies identified?
135. Were consequence-based strategies identified?
146. Did verbal reports from current staff member(s) indicate that the BSP was
implemented with a high degree of integrity?
147. Did direct observation of current staff member(s) indicate that the BSP is
implemented with a high degree of integrity?
149. Was there evidence (documentation) that target and replacement behavior data had
been collected, summarized, and regularly reviewed (at least monthly) by the clinician?
Figure 9
item item item item item item item item item item item item
Name BSP
122 124 127 128 129 132 133 134 135 146 147 149
A.H. 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
W.F. 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
Z.C. 0
S.S. 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
C.G. 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
D.N. 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
J.J. 0
Q.B. 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
Q.C. 0
D.H. 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
R.H. 0
total (N=11) 7 6 3 1 4 0 0 4 7 7 2 1 0
percentage 64% 86% 43% 14% 57% 0% 0% 57% 100% 100% 29% 14% 0%
10
Independent Review:
Discharge of Individuals to Shelters and Hotels/Motels
Submitted by Beth Gouse, Ph.D.

August 12, 2018
1
Purpose: Assess whether individuals being discharged from State Hospitals receive assessment
for and consideration of supported housing prior to discharge to a shelter or hotel/motel
Methodology:
• Interviews with individuals in care;
• Interviews with clinical leadership at GRHA and GRHS, including Mr. Coleman, Chief
of Social Work-GRHA, Christie Lastinger, Chief of Social Work-GHRS, and Dr.
Bashera, Medical Director-GRHS;
• Record review (records of all individuals discharged from GRHA and GRHS to shelters
and hotels/motels between January 1 and June 30, 2018;
• Readmission data for individuals discharged to shelters and hotels/motels from GRHA
for last two quarters of FY17 and first two quarters of FY18;
• Readmission data for individuals discharged from GRHS for the last two quarters of
FY17;
• Review of document titled: Overview: Strategies for Outreach to State Hospitals,
Community Hospital EDs, Jails/Prisons & Homeless Populations;
• DBHDD shelter discharge reports FY2018.
Findings:
1. Discharges from GRHA and GRHS to shelters and hotels/motels.
a. Compared to the first two quarters of FY18, at GRHA, discharges to shelters in
the last two quarters of FY 2018 increased 20% (from 10 to 12) and discharges to
hotels/motels increased 30% (from 10 to 13). At GRHS, discharges to shelters
increased 112.5% (from 8 to 17) and discharges to hotels/motels remained the
same (6). While this reflects an overall improvement relative to the higher
percentage of individuals discharged to shelters prior to the policy change that
went into effect in FY16, 3rd quarter, requiring review by the DBHDD Medical
Director prior to discharge to a shelter, discharge to shelters and hotels/motels has
not decreased significantly since the first quarter of FY 18 and, in fact, has
increased somewhat. The significant increase in discharges to shelters from
GRHS was due to the following factors: lacking a severe and persistent mental
illness (SPMI) diagnosis or having a primary diagnosis of substance use and
residential substance use treatment beds were not available. In addition, there
were a few individuals who were not from the Savannah area and requested to
return to their home areas out of state. Unlike at GRHS, individuals discharged
from GRHA primarily had SPMI diagnoses and were less likely to have a primary
substance use diagnosis.
b. While significantly more individuals completed the Supported Housing Need and
Choice Evaluation Screening Checklist while at GRHS as compared to GRHA,
there was evidence of only one of these individuals receiving a voucher following
his hospitalization in the last 2 quarters of FY18.
c. The practice of the shelter committee at GRHS reviewing each request for
discharge to a shelter and meeting with the individual continues, yet this process
of interviewing with the individual has not yet been instituted at GRHA. Of note
is that on at least two occasions, the shelter committee denied the request as the
2
individual was either not deemed ready for discharge or was willing to wait for an
alternative placement.
2. Readmission data.
a. GRHA: As of 7/11/18, 44% of those discharged to shelters in the last two
quarters of FY17 had some type of contact at GRHA (either a brief assessment, a
temporary observation unit stay, or an inpatient stay in adult mental health or
forensic inpatient unit). Of the 44%, 24% were either readmitted to the adult
mental health unit or forensic inpatient unit. Of those discharged to hotels/motels,
20% had some type of contact at GRHA (either a brief assessment, a temporary
observation unit stay, or an inpatient stay in adult mental health or forensic
inpatient unit.) Of the 20%, 13% were readmitted to the adult mental health unit.
b. GRHA: As of 7/11/18, 41% of those discharged to shelters in FY18 had some
type of contact at GRHA (either a brief assessment, a temporary observation unit
stay, or an inpatient stay in adult mental health or forensic inpatient unit.) Of the
41%, 36% were either readmitted to the adult mental health unit, forensic unit, or
to the temporary observation unit. Of those discharged to hotels/motels, 9% had
some type of contact at GRHA (either a brief assessment, a temporary observation
unit stay, or an inpatient stay in adult mental health or forensic inpatient unit).
One of these individuals was discharged to a hotel on 4/19/18 with ACT services.
The ACT team began pursuing civil commitment due to noncompliance with
treatment in the community due to potential dangerousness to children. The client
was placed in a crisis stabilization unit 13 days after his discharge from GRHA to
the hotel after he allegedly attempted to lure a child into his room with candy.
The hotel supervisor reportedly contacted the ACT team within one hour of his
discharge from GRHA due to this incident. The client was readmitted to GRHA
on 7/2/18 where he remained as of 7/11/18.
c. Of note is that stays of 3 days or less in the temporary observation unit are not
counted as inpatient admissions, despite being on the grounds of GRHA. In
addition, of particular concern is that some of the stays in the temporary
observation unit lasted more than 3 days. For practical purposes, these individuals
were experiencing significant psychiatric symptoms warranting hospital level of
care. Furthermore, of the individuals who had stays on the temporary observation
unit, approximately 15% were discharged to a shelter. These discharges are not
reflected on the DBHDD Shelter Discharge Report. Please note that this
readmission data is only based on readmissions to GRHA and does not include
admissions to private hospitals.
d. GRHS: As of 8/10/18, 33% of individuals discharged to shelters and
hotels/motels in the last two quarters of FY17 have been readmitted to GRHS and
20% of those discharged to hotels/motels were readmitted.
3. Length of stay.
a. Average length of stay (ALOS) was also examined to ascertain how length of stay
impacts discharges to shelters and hotel/motels. The data in this regard differ
significantly between GRHA and GRHS. At GRHA, the ALOS has continued to
increase from FY17 to FY18 for those discharged to shelters (FY17-19.25 days,
3
FY18-36.25 days, reflecting an 88% increase) and to hotels/motels (FY17-21.25

days, FY18-27.25 days, reflecting a 28% increase). Meanwhile at GRHS, the
ALOS for those discharged to shelters decreased 26% (from 20 days in FY17 to
14.75 days in FY18). In contrast, for those discharged to hotels/motels from
GRHS, the ALOS increased 65% (from 10.3 days in FY17 to 17 days in FY18)
(Note that data for GRHS in FY17, quarter 2 was excluded from the calculation
because there appeared to be an outlier with a significantly lengthier LOS relative
to individuals in any other quarter).
4. Aftercare follow-up.
a. According to the aftercare report, completed by Hospital social workers after
discharge, that attempts to determine whether the individual followed up with
scheduled aftercare appointment, for those discharged to shelters in the 3rd and 4th
quarters of FY18, consistent with data from the first 2 quarters of FY18, the report
was completed most of the time. This continues to be an improvement over
FY17. However, the overwhelming majority of individuals discharged to shelters
and hotel/motels do not follow-up with scheduled aftercare appointments.
Furthermore, contrary to what one might expect, having an ACT team or ICM
does not result in improved connection to services after discharge, if the
placement is a shelter or hotel/motel.
5. ACT/ICM.
a. The number of individuals referred or already receiving ACT and ICM services in
the 3rd and 4th quarters of FY18 was similar to those referred or already receiving
these services in the first two quarters of FY18. This reflects a continued positive
trend as individuals appropriate for these services are receiving or being referred
more than in FY16. However, record review does not reveal linkage with these
providers, prior to discharge, for new referrals, especially at GRHA.
Furthermore, without this support in the community, transition to permanent
housing is extremely unlikely as is evident based on the data previously noted
about poor rates of aftercare follow-up and high readmission rates.
6. PATH.
a. The review of records clearly reflects efforts by social workers to offer a variety
of resources (e.g., PATH, placement in PCH, transitional housing, residential
substance abuse treatment, BOSU assistance, ACT, ICM, etc.) during the
discharge planning process. However, record review reveals that though these
services are offered at both GRHA and GRHS, they are routinely offered earlier
in admission at GRHS, resulting in actual linkage with the provider prior to
discharge. When the referral is not made, it is typically because the individual
refuses the service. Even if the individual refuses, the practice at GRHS is that
staff request that the PATH team come to meet with the individual regardless and
an effort to engage is at least attempted.
7. Unit-based discharge planning interventions.

a. There continue to be limited unit-based treatment interventions focused on
discharge planning and building knowledge of community resources. Numerous
4
transition planning groups and related skills-based interventions are available in

the treatment malls at both GRHA and GRHS; however, the majority of
individuals do not attend the treatment mall during the initial weeks of admission.
Aside from the Peer Mentor project at GRHA, the writer is unaware of any
additional initiatives focused on improving linkage to community providers.
8. Recovery Treatment Plan.

a. The recovery plan form was revised and rolled out in AVATAR in October 2017.
Training on the revised IRP manual and clinical chart audit tool was held on May
21, 2018. It is unclear whether the revised form will assist with developing more
focused, individualized objectives and interventions geared towards transition and
successful community placement. Recovery plans reviewed for this report did not
reveal significant differences in either the individualized goals and objectives or
changes from one treatment plan to the next. However, there was evidence that
the present status section of the treatment plan was updated. This training was
attended by a host of multidisciplinary staff. It is unclear whether data from the
clinical chart audit tool are available yet.
9. Benefits/Entitlements.
a. The benefits application process continues to be a challenge. While the record
review revealed some progress with the procurement of IDs, there was evidence
that some individuals still do not have IDs despite the longer lengths of stay.
Some of this is due to the difficulties associated with procuring birth certificates
for individuals from out-of-state. According to documentation provided by this
reviewer, DBHDD and the GRHA Collaborative identified this issue as a focus of
attention; however, it is unclear what procedures have been developed as a result.
10. Communication.
a. Communication between Hospital staff and community providers is variable.
GRHA has more challenges in this regard due to the larger number of providers
and the increased turnover of social work staff and the reliance upon contract
staff. Documentation provided to this reviewer identifies collaboration between
DBHDD regional staff and GRHA staff focused on, among other things,
improving community provider involvement. Scheduling joint training and “meet
and greet” opportunities were identified as action steps. It is unclear how these
initiatives are being implemented or how the progress is being
monitored/measured. At GRHS, the record review revealed evidence of
communication between social work staff and DBHDD regional staff around the
Supported Housing Need and Choice Evaluation Screening. In addition, PATH
staff and Crisis Respite Apartment program staff have weekly standing
appointments at GRHS, making it more likely that linkage to these programs
occurs.
5
Concluding Comments:
The number of individuals discharged to shelters and hotels/motels has remained stagnant or
slightly increased since the first quarter of FY18. This occurs even though the length of stay has
significantly increased from FY17 to FY18.
At GRHA, although referrals to PATH have increased over time, linkage to PATH does not
routinely occur prior to discharge because referral is often made just prior to discharge as
opposed to early in the admission. At GRHS, referral to PATH occurs earlier in admission,
allowing for linkage to happen prior to discharge more routinely.
Staff at both GRHA and GRHS consistently offer a wide variety of services to individuals but
many refuse. Increasing use of peer mentors and on–unit programming focused on community
resources should help in this regard. While there are more peer mentors, on-unit programming
has not significantly changed.
The document titled: Overview: Strategies for Outreach to State Hospitals, Community Hospital
EDs, Jails/Prisons & Homeless Populations identifies a number of strategies to improve
discharge planning and coordination between hospitals and community providers. The document
details three goals and nine objectives with the first review to be completed in July 2018. It is
unclear whether this review was completed and/or what progress has been made towards
implementation.
Based on the record review of all individuals discharged to shelters and hotel/motels in FY18,
this writer is aware of only two individuals who transitioned to supported housing with a GHVP.
Given the high readmission rates and that individuals referred to shelters, hotels and motels
rarely follow-up with treatment following discharge, even those with ACT and ICM, this
resource will continue to be underutilized unless current practices are substantially changed.
6
Independent Review:
Discharge Planning for Forensic Clients In State Hospitals
Submitted by Beth Gouse, Ph.D.

August 12, 2018
Purpose: Assess whether individuals being discharged from State Hospitals with a legal status
of IST/CC (Incompetent to Stand Trial/Civilly Committed) and NGRI (Not Guilty by Reason of
Insanity) receive assessment for and consideration of supported housing prior to
recommendation for discharge.
Methodology: This review included interviews with individuals in care, clinicians, as well as
interviews with clinical leadership and data provided by Dr. Karen Bailey, the Director, Office of
Forensic Services (e.g., list of individuals with DD who remain hospitalized, census data). For
the current report, limited records were reviewed for individuals with a legal status of IST/CC
and a legal status of NGRI at CSH. Specific forms reviewed included multidisciplinary
assessments, recovery plan documents, risk assessments, annual Court letters, and Forensic
Review Committee (FRC) documentation.
Findings:
1. Discharge Planning.
a. The discharge planning process for forensic individuals requires additional
requirements (e.g., more comprehensive risk assessments, presentation to
Forensic Review Committee (FRC) and FRC approval, etc.) in order to determine
readiness for increased privileges and graduated release, subject to Court-required
approval. Since the prior report in February 2018, documentation reflects
continued efforts by staff to move individuals towards discharge. Individuals
reviewed at CSH in 2017 were reviewed on July 13, 2018 and a number of these
individuals have since been discharged. Furthermore, data provided by DBHDD
indicate that the majority of time, the Court agrees with the Hospital’s
recommendation for release. For example, currently, there are reportedly only
eight individuals whom the Hospital recommended for release and the Court
disagreed.
b. Discharge planning reflected in recovery plans does not always reflect
individualized goals and interventions that change when the individual is not
progressing towards discharge or that the interventions actually focus on the skills
necessary for successful outplacement. The recovery plan form was revised and
rolled out in AVATAR in October 2017. Training on the revised IRP manual and
clinical chart audit tool was held on May 21, 2018. It is unclear whether the
revised form will assist with developing more focused, individualized objectives
and interventions geared towards transition and successful community placement.
Recovery plans reviewed for this report did not reveal significant differences in
the individualized goals and objectives identified in one treatment plan to the
next. However, there was evidence that the present status section of the treatment
plan was routinely updated. A clinical chart audit tool has been developed but
aggregate data about findings regarding quality of discharge planning has not
been provided.
c. DBHDD provided data about the current individuals with DD who remain
hospitalized: 20/35 (57%) of DD individuals with a legal status of IST/CC are
being recommended for discharge. This is essentially the same number of
individuals being recommended for discharge as indicated in the prior report. Of
2
the five NGRI individuals still hospitalized, four (80%) are being recommended
for discharge. In the last report, there were eight NGRI individuals being
recommended for discharge. DBHDD did not provide data about whether the
Court was in agreement with discharge recommendations, as had been previously
provided. In addition, data provided indicated that providers were only identified
in 13 of the 24 individuals being recommended for discharge, suggesting that
finding providers willing to accept some of these individuals is a challenge. This
was evident in a few of the records reviewed. For example, one individual with
moderate ID has been meeting with various providers for the past six months.
2. Timeliness of documentation.
a. Consistent with this evaluator’s prior report, completion of recovery plans, risk
assessments, Forensic Review Committee (FRC) meetings, and annual Court
letters are generally occurring in a timely manner and, therefore, not contributing
to delays in discharge planning. There are monthly meetings between the
DBHDD Forensic Director and specific Hospital Forensic Directors, as well as
consultation on an as needed basis. There continue to be some documentation-
related delays associated with the Court, as evidenced by delays in scheduling
court dates for hearings, delays in receiving correspondence (e.g., Court order
allowing expansion of privileges, conditional release, etc.), as well as occasional
instances when the Court disagrees with the Hospital’s recommendation for
conditional release. For example, according to data provided by DBHDD, there
are currently 65 individuals whom the hospital has recommended for release
whom are awaiting a court date.
3. Civil Commitment.
a. Inpatient civil commitment remains the more commonly recommended type of
commitment. Though this decision is ultimately the Court’s, efforts to educate
the Court about available community resources for monitoring and support does
not appear to be increasing the use of outpatient commitment. According to Dr.
Bailey, the number of individuals recommended for outpatient commitment
remains approximately the same in FY18 as in FY17.
4. Court Interface/Education.
a. The assignment of forensic community coordinators in 2016 continues to have a
positive effect on increasing the Court’s willingness to order release into the
community, in large part due to the increased awareness of the Court on
monitoring capabilities in the community. However, there is an overreliance
upon use of Community Integration Homes (CIHs) due to the 24 hour supervision
when less intensive supervision options may be appropriate. Continuing to
educate the Courts is critical to increasing awareness of other community-based
resources.
b. Efforts to educate the Court regarding community resources continue and are
discussed below. Since the last Independent Reviewer’s report, the following
trainings have been provided to Court-related personnel:
3
Gwinnett criminal defense section on March 16, 2018;

Rockdale Circuit Public Defenders on April 26, 2018;
Southwestern Judicial Circuit Prosecutors on May 17, 2018;
Flint Circuit Public Defenders on May 18, 2018;
Rockdale Circuit Bar Association (CR and civil commitment) on June 8, 2018;
Griffin Judicial Circuit Prosecutors on July 10, 2018;
Peace Officer Association of GA –scheduled for week of August 13, 2018.
5. Housing Resources.
a. Forensic legal status data indicate that while the overall census has remained
relatively stable, the number of individuals with a NGRI legal status continues to
decrease, while the number of IST restoration individuals continues to increase.
See table below: As of 2/23/17-As of 1/1/18-As of 8/1/18:
Legal Status CSH ECRH GRHA GRHS WCGRH Total

Pretrial 4/7/4 2/3/0 5/1/3 3/4/4 2/1/2 16/16/13
IST 54/56/67 20/17/26 83/86/82 29/33/38 41/51/53 227/243/266
restoration
IST/CC 68/63/65 28/31/28 17/18/19 50/51/50 59/54/49 222/217/212
NGRI 54/47/37 14/15/13 14/13/11 27/20/16 42/42/44 151/137/121
Total 180/173/173 64/66/67 119/118/115 109/108/108 144/148/148 616/612/611
Though not reflected in this table, Dr. Bashera also reported that the percentage of
individuals transferred from jails for treatment at GRHS has increased from about
3% to 12% in the past four years. This is consistent with the national trend of the
increasing number of individuals with mental health issues currently housed in
jails and the importance of linking these individuals to services in the community.
b. Availability of supported and supervised housing remains a factor delaying

discharges. According to Dr. Bailey, there continues to be a waiting list for
Community Integration Homes (CIH), likely due to an overreliance on this
resource by judges because of the 24-hour supervision in this setting. As of June
30, 2018, 4 of the 61 slots were unfilled so this is a significant improvement in the
80% operating capacity noted in the prior report. In addition, there are currently
30 individuals on the waiting list for a CIH, including those making transition
visits. This is a significant increase over the seven identified as being on the
waiting list at the time of my last report. The overreliance on CIHs for
outplacement and the associated wait list result in increased lengths of stay in the
hospital setting. For example, one individual has been successfully using
community privileges since October 2017. He went to court on May 23, 2018 and
the Court agreed he is ready to reside in the community. However, as of July 13,
2018, his application for a CIH had not yet been submitted.
c. With respect to the forensic apartment slots, there are 51 slots, up from 48. As of
June 30, 2018, the apartments in Athens and Albany were operating at close to
capacity each month between January 2018 and June 2018. In contrast, the
4
apartments in Valdosta and Savannah were operating between 60% and 87%
capacity between January 2018 and June 2018. Six individuals are in the process
of making transition visits and there is not a waiting list for this type of residential
placement. While still somewhat underutilized, these capacity ratios are an
improvement over the data provided for the last report indicating an increase in
discharges to this setting. Also of note is that both of these types of residential
placement options are serving individuals with a legal status of NGRI or IST/CC.
d. According to data provided by DBHDD, out of 125 individuals (67 IST/CC and
58 NGRI) discharged in Calendar Year 2017, 4 (1 individual with IST/CC legal
status and 3 individuals with NGRI legal status) were discharged to a housing
program (defined in policy as GHVP). (See table below).
In the table below, only two individuals are reported as receiving a GHV.
Forensic Discharges by Location. January 1. 2018 through June 30, 2018
Legal Status
Discharge to: cc-IST IST- rest NGRI pretrial Total
Crisis Apartment 1 1
FAMILY HOME – WITH RELATIVES 1 11 1 13
GROUP HOME 18 4 17 39
Housing Program 2 2
JAIL 3 190 1 26 220
LICENSED PERSONAL CARE HOME 7 3 10
Medical Inpatient Facility 1 1 2
RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT PROGRAM 2 7 9
Nursing Home 5 6 3 14
Total 37 212 35 26 310
Clearly, this is a significantly underutilized option. In addition, while DBHDD

has reported that individuals step down from CIHs and forensic apartments to live
with family, GHVP apartments, and nursing homes, the numbers that step down
to these settings are still not being tracked. As a result, individuals are discharged
5
primarily to supervised settings as opposed to more independent living settings

with wraparound services.
6. Concluding Comments
The timeliness of recommendations for discharge for individuals with a forensic legal status have
improved over the past few years. However, there continue to be some Court-related delays as
far as timely response to recommendations.
The use of peer mentors has increased and there was evidence in the record review of the
positive impact these staff have on helping individuals move towards discharge.
Though Hospitals are routinely completing thorough risk assessments that inform discharge
planning, development of specific risk-reduction strategies and related skill development are not
always evident in the recovery plans.
Use of community integration homes (CIHs) is most commonly the discharge setting
recommended by Hospitals. While this is certainly appropriate for many individuals from a risk
perspective, there are a number of individuals who could live in a less supervised setting with
additional wrap around services and supports, but this is typically not viewed as a viable option
as an initial placement from the Hospital. As a result, the overreliance upon CIHs results in
unnecessarily long extended Hospital stays for some individuals because of the lengthy wait list.
In addition, even when the Court approves release, there are challenges with finding providers
willing to accept some individuals and the lack of specific timeframes for completion of referral
packets, interviews with providers, and provider response to referrals adds to the longer length of
stay.

Dkt. 305 Joint Notice of Filing Report of Independent Reviewer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dkt. 305 Joint Notice of Filing Report of Independent Reviewer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:10-cv-00249-CAP Document 305 Filed 09/19/18 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

NOTICE OF JOINT FILING OF THE REPORT

Both documents contain provisions requiring an Independent Reviewer to

Extension Agreement ¶ 42.

On September 18, 2018, the Independent Reviewer, Elizabeth Jones,

Independent Reviewer’s report and the reports of her consultants.

Respectfully submitted, this 19th day of September, 2018.

BYUNG J. PAK JOHN M. GORE

/s/ Aileen Bell Hughes ALBERTO RUISANCHEZ

CHRISTOPHER M. CARR /s/ Jaime Theriot (with express permission)

State Law Department JOSH BELINFANTE

Rule 5.1B for documents prepared by computer.

This 19th day of September, 2018.

/s/ Aileen Bell Hughes

I hereby certify that on September 19, 2018, a copy of the foregoing

served on all parties of record by operation of the Court’s CM/ECF system.

/s/ Aileen Bell Hughes

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT REVIEWER

United States v. Georgia

Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-249-CAP

September 19, 2018

1 Job Description, Regional Housing Outreach Coordinator (HOC).

Development of the Foundation for a Community-Based System

Background and Context for Placements from State Hospitals

Provisions Related to Individuals with DD

Status of Transitions of Individuals with DD from State Hospitals

Agreement Requirement: The SA requires that individuals with forensic status be

Agreement Requirement: The SA requires that the number of individuals served in a

Recommended Finding: It is recommended that the State be found in substantial compliance

Agreement Requirement: For each individual with DD transitioning from a State

Recommended Finding: It is recommended that the State be found in substantial compliance

Agreement Requirement: The EA requires the State to have a properly constituted

Based on information provided to the Independent Reviewer by DBHDD, a properly constituted

Recommended Finding: It is recommended that the State be found in substantial compliance

Agreement Requirement: The EA requires the State to provide effective monitoring

DBHDD’s investigation substantiated neglect in the death of W.E.

Based on his review, Dr. Heick has reported that:

• Despite evidence of significant maladaptive behaviors that negatively impacted their

Dr. Heick’s report is attached.

Significant identified issues included:

7 Report by Laura Nuss, page 11.

• DBHDD has developed and implemented comprehensive policies and procedures

Agreement Requirement: The SA requires the State to provide Support Coordination to

Recommended Finding: Substantial compliance is recommended for the obligation to establish

Delays in the Service Change/Technical Assistance Requests (STAR) process continue to

opportunities, access to transportation, control of personal finances, and the individual’s

Recommended Finding: It is recommended that DBHDD be found in substantial compliance

Agreement Requirement: The EA requires the State to provide Support Coordinators

Agreement Requirement: The State is to ensure that Support Coordinators have no

Agreement Requirement: The EA requires the State to ensure that Support

Recommended Finding: Based on the information submitted directly by the Support

10 DBHDD Support Coordination Performance Report, June 30, 2018, p. 22.

Individuals with Complex Needs

Agreement Requirement: The EA requires the State to maintain a High Risk

Health - increase in HRST score; ER visit; hospitalization; recurring serious

Behavioral – material change in behavior; behavioral incident with intervention

Environmental – threat or actual discharge from a residential provider; change in

Other – confirmed identification of any factor above by a provider, Support

For deteriorating health (not imminently life threatening), the provider is to

The State assessment is to be conducted by an RN/medical professional with

The assessment is to include direct observation of staff to verify staff knowledge

If the State assessment finds service-delivery deficiencies that jeopardize the